The owner of Dog A claims that Dog B attacked his/her dog. This may or may not be the case. The owner of Dog A isn't neutral as they are inclined to argue in favour of their own dog. The owner of Dog A also has a vested interest in the situation because if their dog was to be held responsible they would suffer the consequences . The owner of B isn't neutral either and also has a vested interest . However the owner of Dog B argues that because his/her dog has more injuries that means that Dog A is at fault here. This reason isn't sufficient enough to draw such a conclusion . One reason why it isn't sufficient is because it's mentioned that B's dog was involved in a fight with C's dog maybe the injuries on B's dog could be from the fight with C's dog .
The other reason is because the dog that starts a fight isn't always the one who finishes it in his/her favour.
The owner of C's dog says that B's dog also got in a fight with their dog and that C always gets along with A . I believe I can assume that since A and C "always" get along with each other , the owners must be friends that would give both owners a vested interest as both their dogs have had an encounter with B so it might delight them to punish B . Thus C can't be recognised as a neutral witness . Also the fact that A gets along with C isn't sufficient evidence to suggest that A wouldn't normally behave in such a bellicose manner. As a result this evidence doesn't amount to relevant expertise. D has often walked with A assuming...