The Vitals prosecution took an unexpected turn this week, leaving many questions hanging in the air. As Sam Sittlington, the high-profile witness in this critical case, was expected to face further cross-examination, his absence has stirred both suspicion and confusion. But the intrigue doesn’t stop there. A mysterious figure, Christopher Sittlington, has now emerged, raising eyebrows and prompting a deeper investigation into the connections between these two men.
Where Was Sam?
Last week, Sam Sittlington took the witness stand in the ongoing Vitals prosecutions. The case, already fraught with political and legal complexities, took a strange turn when Sittlington was due to return for further questioning. The defence was expected to cross-examine him thoroughly, but their plans were thrown into disarray as Sittlington failed to appear on Thursday and Friday.
The explanation given for his absence was simple: he had reportedly informed the prosecution that he was unwell. However, Sittlington did not provide the court with a medical certificate to corroborate his illness. Normally, a witness summoned by the court would be in contempt if they failed to appear without valid documentation—an established safeguard to ensure that justice is not delayed. Even if a medical condition is claimed, the court must be convinced of its validity, often requiring a medical certificate and, in some cases, even testimony from the attending physician.
Who Is Christopher Sittlington?
As the court proceedings stuttered, the defence seized the opportunity to raise an intriguing issue: the identity of one Christopher Sittlington. Up until now, the spotlight has been firmly fixed on Sam Sittlington, but this week revealed that Magistrate Gabriella Vella had appointed another Sittlington—Christopher—to an expert role in the inquiry. The mere fact that another individual from the Sittlington family was involved in this high-profile case raises questions of nepotism, potential conflicts of interest, and overall transparency.
Nothing is currently known about Christopher Sittlington’s expertise or his role in the inquiry. Was he recommended by someone within the legal system, or was his appointment an independent decision by the magistrate? Most significantly, how is Christopher related to Sam, and what financial compensation did he receive from the €10 million price tag that the inquiry reportedly cost Maltese taxpayers?
The defence’s strategic move to introduce these questions created visible discomfort among the prosecution, who seemed unprepared to tackle this unexpected challenge. The questions surrounding Christopher’s involvement cast yet another shadow over the integrity of Magistrate Vella’s inquiry, prompting speculation about whether this is a weak point that could be exploited as the case progresses.
Maltese taxpayers have been footing the bill for this inquiry, and the absence of clarity surrounding key figures such as Sam and Christopher Sittlington is fuelling suspicions. Are there more connections lurking beneath the surface that haven’t yet been revealed?
Share this article on social media, or send it to a friend who cares about transparency in Maltese justice.
