As the warden of Larkfield Park, you have been called to investigate an incident involving a fight between two dogs. The fight took place in the park fifteen minutes ago. Using the information given in the following passage, write out a reasoned case for judging which dog (and therefore which owner), if either, was to blame. In your answer you should make clear what assumptions you are making about what the participants could have seen, what motives they might have had for saying what they do, what expertise they have and any other relevant factors:

The owner of the first dog (A) claims that the second dog attacked hers ‘viciously and without warning’. The owner of the second dog (B) denies this, pointing to the injuries on her dog as evidence that it was (A)’s dog which attacked viciously. (You can see that (B)’s dog is indeed more injured than (A)’s)
The owner of a third dog (C) says that, about half an hour ago her dog had been involved in a fight with (B)’s dog, a fight that was started, without any provocation, by (B)’s dog. In addition, she insists on making the point that (A)’s dog ‘always gets on well with hers’.
A jogger (J) tells you that, from a distance, he had seen both incidents in which (B)’s dog is alleged to have been involved. In both cases, he says, (B)’s dog did seem to be the one that was chasing the other dog and making most noise.
Another dog owner (D), who has just come into the park, says that he has often walked with (A) and her dog; he finds it impossible to believe that (A)’s dog could be vicious.