As Switzerland continues to confront the aftermath of the deadly fire in Crans-Montana, new revelations surrounding the bar’s surveillance system have intensified scrutiny and deepened public unease. Jacques Moretti has claimed that the video surveillance system inside his bar, Le Constellation, “malfunctioned” just minutes before the blaze that killed 40 people and injured more than 110 others. The explanation has triggered immediate controversy, particularly as investigators examine whether the missing footage may have been deliberately erased.

According to Moretti’s account, the entire surveillance system stopped functioning shortly before the fire erupted. The bar was equipped with 14 cameras, yet none recorded the moment the fire began. Investigators have confirmed that the last available images show the venue at approximately 1:23 a.m. — just three minutes before the inferno broke out. Those missing minutes, now central to the investigation, represent a critical gap in the timeline of one of Switzerland’s deadliest public-safety disasters.

The claim of a sudden technical failure affecting all 14 cameras simultaneously has raised immediate questions. Investigators are now openly considering the possibility of a voluntary deletion of video footage, according to sources familiar with the inquiry. While no conclusion has been formally announced, the hypothesis has become a key focus as authorities attempt to reconstruct what happened in the final moments before the fire spread through the venue.

The recovered images themselves have added another layer of concern. On the final recorded frames, investigators observed that the upper floor of the bar appeared almost empty, while the basement level was packed with people. This stark contrast has drawn attention to crowd distribution inside the building shortly before the blaze, particularly as the basement would later become one of the most dangerous areas during the fire.

Officials have not publicly stated whether the distribution of patrons violated safety regulations, but the images are now being examined in conjunction with witness testimonies and physical evidence. Survivors have previously described chaos, confusion, and overcrowding as smoke and flames spread rapidly, making evacuation extremely difficult for those trapped below ground.

The unexplained loss of surveillance footage has become especially troubling given the broader context of the case. Investigators are already examining multiple alleged safety failures, including blocked emergency exits, inaccessible fire extinguishers, narrow evacuation routes, and the presence of highly flammable materials inside the venue. The absence of video evidence during the most critical moments significantly complicates efforts to determine how the fire started and how quickly it spread.

Legal experts note that surveillance footage often plays a decisive role in cases involving mass casualties, providing objective insight into timelines, human behavior, and emergency responses. When such footage is missing — particularly due to an alleged malfunction occurring minutes before a disaster — investigators are obligated to examine all possible explanations, including technical failure, human error, and intentional interference.

Moretti has maintained that the failure was accidental, insisting that the system “blocked” or stopped working on its own. He has not publicly explained why the malfunction would affect every camera simultaneously, nor has he provided technical documentation to support the claim. Authorities are now expected to rely on forensic analysis of the recording equipment to determine whether the loss of footage resulted from a genuine system failure or from deliberate action.

Public reaction to the revelation has been swift and intense. Across Switzerland and beyond, many have expressed disbelief that a modern surveillance system could fail entirely at such a critical moment. Families of the victims have voiced frustration, arguing that the missing footage may have contained answers about who was responsible for safety decisions, how evacuation unfolded, and whether critical moments were mishandled.

The timing of the last images has become a focal point of the investigation. At 1:23 a.m., three minutes before the fire, the bar appeared to be operating normally. Music was reportedly playing, and there was no visible sign of panic. What occurred in the minutes that followed — when the cameras went dark — remains unknown. Investigators are now relying on witness statements, emergency call records, and physical evidence to fill the gap left by the missing video.

Authorities have not confirmed whether the fire originated on the upper level or in the basement, nor whether crowd density played a role in the scale of the casualties. The absence of footage has made it more difficult to determine how quickly smoke spread and whether any early warning signs were visible before flames took hold.

The issue of the surveillance system has also raised broader questions about oversight and compliance. Investigators are examining whether the cameras were properly maintained, whether backup recording systems existed, and whether any prior technical issues had been reported. In venues hosting large numbers of patrons, functioning surveillance systems are often considered a critical component of safety and accountability.

As the inquiry continues, prosecutors are expected to determine whether the loss of footage constitutes negligence or a criminal act. If deliberate deletion is proven, the implications could be severe, potentially adding obstruction-related charges to an already complex case. Even if no intentional act is established, the unexplained failure of the surveillance system remains a damaging element in the public narrative surrounding the tragedy.

For the families of the 40 victims, the missing footage represents more than a technical issue. It symbolizes unanswered questions — moments that may never be fully reconstructed, and details that could have provided clarity or closure. Survivors, many of whom suffered severe injuries, have also called for transparency, emphasizing that accountability depends on uncovering the full truth.

The Crans-Montana fire has already forced Switzerland to confront uncomfortable realities about safety enforcement, regulatory oversight, and responsibility. The surveillance controversy has added another dimension to that reckoning, reinforcing concerns that critical safeguards failed at every level.

As investigators work to determine whether the cameras truly malfunctioned or whether evidence was intentionally erased, public trust hangs in the balance. The coming findings will not only influence the legal outcome of the case but may also shape how Switzerland reforms safety standards for public venues.

For now, one fact remains undisputed: 14 cameras recorded nothing when it mattered most. Forty lives were lost. And the three minutes between 1:23 a.m. and the outbreak of the fire have become one of the darkest and most contested gaps in the investigation — a silence that continues to haunt a nation seeking answers.