Former chief whip Andrew Mitchell does not come out of the "plebgate" affair "smelling of roses", a Conservative Party vice-chairman said.
Lichfield MP Michael Fabricant took to social media website Twitter to ask a series of questions about the altercation between Mr Mitchell and police officers at the gates of Downing Street, following the release of CCTV footage of the encounter.
And he warned that there should not be a "witch-hunt" against the police, after questions were raised over the account given by officers.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe has promised a "ruthless" investigation "no matter where the truth takes us", after breaking off from his holiday to be briefed on progress.
Mr Mitchell claimed he was the victim of a deliberate attempt to "toxify" the Conservative Party and destroy his career
He was forced to quit his Cabinet post in October amid a storm of protest over claims he abused officers when they asked him to use a pedestrian side-exit rather than open the Downing Street gates. He has confirmed that he swore during the exchange, but has firmly denied claims he addressed officers as "plebs" and "morons".
Last week Scotland Yard opened an investigation into a possible conspiracy against the MP after it emerged that an email to deputy chief whip John Randall, purporting to come from a civilian witness backing up the allegations, was in fact written by another officer. And supporters of Mr Mitchell said that CCTV images taken from Downing Street and the Foreign Office showed that there was not enough time for the supposed exchange to have taken place as reported.
The Sutton Coldfield MP detailed his recollection of the conversation in an article for the Sunday Times yesterday.
But Mr Fabricant said that the CCTV footage - as broadcast last week by Channel 4 News and Dispatches - lasted 46 seconds, while the words recalled by Mr Mitchell would take only around 20 seconds to speak.
And he suggested that people were ready to believe that Mr Mitchell may have been abrasive because of pre-existing views of his personality.
"The problem Andrew Mitchell has is that if Michael Gove had been accused, it would be hard to believe. He is invariably polite and courteous," wrote Mr Fabricant in a series of messages on Twitter spanning several hours on Christmas Eve.
"If Andrew Mitchell was stitched up by the police, it is unforgivable. But will we ever know exactly what was said and by whom?.
"Witch-hunts are unfair. The witch-hunt against Mitchell was wrong if story was embellished. But the witch-hunt now against the police not good.
"CCTV reveals AMitchell meets police at 19:36:08. There is discussion. AM leaves gates at 19:36:54. Ch4 claims `20 secs'. Bad sums, boys.
"I suspect the truth is 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. NO-ONE comes out of it smelling of roses: neither the police nor Andrew.
"What I am saying is CCTV reveals about 46 secs of conversation. Read Andrew's account in Sunday Times. 20 secs? What else was said???"
Mr Fabricant said that the differing accounts of the affair raised a number of questions:
"CCTV shows 46 second interaction between AM and Police. AM's report only takes 20 seconds. What else was said?," he asked.
"The CCTV outside FCO has had its time code removed. Why?
"Why does CCTV footage show someone walking away and then walking back again to Gates?
"Downing Street CCTV footage does show at least one person outside listening to exchange. Will he/she come forward to help investigation?
"We know that the email to Randall was probably false, but does that make police at Gates liars? That does NOT follow logically."
As other Twitter users responded to the Tory MP, he wrote: "What is my motive? To get to the truth and overcome poor journalism by some. Neither Andrew nor police should be vilified until facts known."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article