Dog Fight.

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 the owners are friends that would mean that D can’t be recognised as a neutral witness. D’s ability to perceive can be questioned as he or she had just entered the park whether that was at the time of the fight or after we aren't made aware. Also his acknowledgement of D and A’s relationship isn’t sufficient evidence to draw such a conclusion it doesn’t amount to