New testimony seen by investigators has brought greater clarity to several critical details surrounding the deadly fire at a bar in Crans-Montana, including the identity of the woman seen filming in a widely circulated image, the nature of a mysterious helmet captured on camera, and the precise area where the fire is believed to have ignited. The statements, provided by Jessica Moretti during questioning, help reconstruct the moments inside the venue shortly before the blaze erupted and add important context to evidence that has been the subject of public speculation.

According to her testimony, the helmet visible in one of the images taken inside the bar was not safety equipment or protective gear, as some observers had initially assumed. Jessica Moretti explained that the helmet was in fact a promotional accessory associated with Dom Pérignon, used during the service of Champagne bottles. She stated that such helmets are part of branded presentation tools commonly used during VIP service in nightlife venues, particularly on high-profile nights such as New Year’s Eve. The clarification directly addresses questions raised after the image circulated online, where the presence of the helmet had been interpreted by some as a sign of improvised protection or emergency response.

Moretti also confirmed a detail investigators had been seeking to verify: she identified herself as the woman seen filming with a mobile phone in the photograph. She stated that she was standing behind another staff member, Cyane, at the time the image was captured. According to her account, filming was routine during Champagne service, particularly when presenting premium bottles accompanied by branded accessories and visual effects. She emphasized that the recording took place during normal service, before any sign of danger was apparent inside the venue.

In her statement, Moretti outlined her responsibilities that night and specified which guests she was assigned to serve. She told investigators that she was handling the tables of Charles and Lucas, which she identified as being located in the upper-left section of the room as shown in the first image taken before the fire. She described the atmosphere in that area as lively but orderly, with guests celebrating and staff moving continuously between tables to deliver drinks and manage service. At that stage, she said, there were no visible signs of smoke, flames, or technical issues that would have suggested an imminent emergency.

The most consequential part of Moretti’s testimony relates to the origin of the fire. She told investigators that, based on what she observed and later understood during the unfolding chaos, the fire began near tables 60 and 61, located lower in the room and directly in front of the restroom area. Her statement aligns with accounts from other witnesses who reported noticing smoke or flames emerging from that section shortly before panic spread through the venue. While she did not claim to have seen the initial ignition itself, she stated that the first alarmed reactions and movement of guests appeared to come from the direction of those tables.

Investigators consider the identification of a specific ignition zone to be a significant element in reconstructing the sequence of events. The rapid spread of the fire, combined with the density of the crowd and the layout of the venue, has made it difficult to determine the exact starting point through physical evidence alone. Witness testimonies such as Moretti’s therefore play an essential role in narrowing down the area where the fire likely originated. Her reference to tables 60 and 61 provides a concrete spatial marker that can be compared with surveillance data, floor plans, and other statements.

Moretti’s explanation regarding the Dom Pérignon helmet has also helped dispel confusion surrounding staff behavior captured in images from the night. She noted that high-end nightlife service often involves visual presentation elements that can appear unusual or misleading when viewed outside their intended context. In the aftermath of the tragedy, images frozen in time were scrutinized intensely, and ordinary service accessories were sometimes interpreted as signs of distress or emergency preparation. Her testimony reframes those visuals as part of routine operations rather than responses to danger.

Her acknowledgment that she was filming has prompted investigators to consider whether any video footage from her phone exists and whether it could contribute to the timeline. Moretti stated that the filming occurred before the fire and did not capture the outbreak itself. Authorities have not disclosed whether such footage has been recovered or reviewed, but her admission establishes a clear link between the image and a known individual, eliminating uncertainty about the person behind the camera.

In describing the moments immediately before the fire, Moretti portrayed a venue operating at full capacity, with loud music, heavy foot traffic, and constant movement by staff and guests alike. She said the noise level and lighting conditions would have made it difficult to notice subtle warning signs. According to her account, the transition from celebration to chaos was abrupt. Once the alarm spread from the lower section near the restrooms, visibility deteriorated rapidly as smoke filled the room, and normal movement became impossible.

She also described the disorientation that followed, explaining that within seconds, guests began pushing toward exits, furniture was knocked over, and staff members lost sight of one another. Moretti said she attempted to move away from the lower section and toward what she believed was a safer path, coughing from smoke and struggling to maintain direction. She indicated that she was separated from the guests she had been serving and only later learned the full scale of the tragedy through official briefings.

Investigators have noted that statements given by witnesses and staff are subject to the effects of stress and trauma, but they stress that such accounts remain crucial to building a coherent reconstruction. Moretti’s testimony is being compared with other witness statements, digital evidence, and the physical layout of the venue to assess consistency and identify overlapping details. While her account does not by itself establish causation, it clarifies several previously ambiguous elements and reduces speculation surrounding the images taken inside the bar.

As the investigation continues, authorities are expected to further examine the area around tables 60 and 61, as well as the restroom corridor, to determine how the fire could have started and spread so rapidly. The confirmation that the helmet was a promotional Champagne accessory and that the woman filming was a staff member performing routine duties removes two uncertainties that had fueled online theories.

For investigators, each clarified detail helps transform a chaotic and fragmented picture into a more structured timeline. Moretti’s testimony, by identifying who was filming, what equipment was being used, which tables she served, and where the fire is believed to have begun, provides a clearer understanding of the environment inside the venue moments before disaster struck. While many questions remain unanswered, her account represents an important step toward separating fact from assumption in one of the most closely scrutinized aspects of the Crans-Montana fire investigation.