Compare and Contrast
Liz McColgan's accuser was her former husband - Peter McColgan who claimed that his estranged wife Liz had assaulted him at the family home they shared together in Carnoustie - following the break up of their marriage.
Peter McColgan claimed that he was punched and attacked by his former wife - in July this year - and the incident also led to a separate charge against of breach of the peace against Liz McColgan - which was also thrown out.
Liz McColgan always denied the denied the attack - and the judge agreed with her - so all charges were dropped.
Liz McColgan's defence soliticor described Peter McColgan's behaviour as "shifty and conniving" - and claimed that he made up allegations that to ruin his former wife's career.
Serious stuff.
But what I don't understand is how can Peter McColgan just walk away - after making such serious allegations - without being charged with perjury himself and/or for wasting police time.
Because both their stories can't be correct - and while it's common for two witnesses to an incident to have markedly different recollections - there's a world of difference between a pushing and shoving row - and an actual physical assault.
The contrast with Tommy Sheridan trial for perjury - seems to the obvious comparison to make.
After the trial Liz McColgan said:
"This shows me I am on my way to a new life and away from someone who has tried to control me or control what I have done.
There are men who really are being beaten up by their wives, and for him to pretend that happened, and portray me in that way, is a disgrace.
This has been a really hard six months for me and my family. There's a lot more to this story. It's been a difficult life with Peter McColgan."
Good for her.
