There’s a story about successful restaurants and bars that generated so much cash during covid times that allowed the suspects to buy property without debt. Cash, seems to be a rather important issue in this story.
I presume it is possible to verify exactly when the content was deleted
Teenies might use cash as a way of avoiding a parent audit trail.
Nothing is permanently deleted on the internet.
Authorities should be able to retrieve via official routes, or maybe through internet archives
4 Likes
It was definitely all gone the morning after the fire - I checked at the time.
Assuming they didn’t actually delete their social media accounts whilst running out of the bar when it was in fire, it was definitely in the few hours after that.
The Old Constellation photos were gone shortly after I posted a link here. I hope it wasn’t my fault that they were deleted.
At some stage in this entire process they can be asked to explain that particular action as a first priority
1 Like
The NZZ interviews good people. This time, a Criminal Law professor from ZH.
A lot of people (including laypeople like me) puts a big responsibility on the construction with the flammable noise insulation foam. But, law people think about statute of limitations (Verjährung). In lay people words: law infractions have expiration dates. After some time, the misconduct cannot be prosecuted anymore. Homicide is one with no expiration date, other law infractions expire after 3, 5 or 10 years.
Sadly, there are precedents in Switzerland about statute of limitation in construction defects:
In fact, there is an interesting precedent for this scenario: in 1985, the concrete ceiling of the indoor swimming pool of Uster collapsed. Twelve people were killed. The reason was a failed choice of material during the construction of the bath in 1972. As a result, chlorine vapors led to corrosion of the chromium nickel steel carriers – and the ceiling collapsed. But because the statute of limitations for unintended construction defects occurs after five years, the proceedings against the original construction managers were finally terminated. Only three professionals were convicted who had not reported defects during later checks.
This opens a huge questions for Crans-Montana fire. If the during inspections no one pointed at the flammable foam, there’s a chance that the construction defects can’t be prosecuted anymore (construction took place in 2015). It seems the lesson here is that fire safety inspection are extremely important, because after 5 years any construction defect is not prosecutable anymore.
Whether in the case of Crans-Montana actually threatens the statute of limitations, however, can only be said if all the facts are known, says Bommer. Among other things, it is still unclear whether and how often the restaurant was controlled. The statements here are contradictory. If such checks after 2015 had claimed defects that had not been corrected by the operators, the limitation period had probably not yet occurred, Bommer suspects. Such considerations, however, are at this point in time a matter of mind games.
Anyway, there’s still plenty of stuff to prosecute:
In Crans-Montana, however, the improper conversion hardly seems to have been the only breach of duty of care. Although the two operators are currently in the focus of the investigation, it is possible that the procedure will be extended to other people. Thus, the fire was triggered by sparklers on champagne bottles, which were carried around in the room and set the ceiling on fire. Igniting such firecrackers could be a breach of duty of care.
1 Like
Is it known if it is the case that an initial inspection actually took place and this material was deemed explicitly to be “acceptable” from a fire-safety point of view ?
Don’t forget the possibility the basement had more persons than the allowed capacity.
2 Likes
This image shows the “sparklers” attached to the bottles:
They weren’t those little ones which children hold on bonfire night but much more powerful.
1 Like
I found them on a UK website:
The blurb says no hot sparks. Either it’s wrong or the ones used at the bar were not CE approved.
That’s something else for the investigators to look into.
Fireworks Guide: Ice Fountains
Low smoke indoor fountains for mounting on cakes and bottles.
Key information
- Bright, silver fountains intended for indoor use.
- Can be used on cakes or attached to bottles with a suitable clip.
- Low smoke and no hot sparks.
- Safe for use on food.
- Burn times typically 40 seconds or so.
- By far the most spectacular indoor effect available to consumers.
If it burns, it is incendiary. I would say the “no hot sparks” means that nothing emitting or falling from the fountain will burn you..just like those hand-held sparklers you can give small kids. But it is like any other candle..put your hand above it and it will burn you.
7 Likes
I’d like to be a fly on the wall for this one…owners to face questioning today?
Memorial ceremony also today. Church bells ring at 2 p.m.
Hm, never heard our chuch bells ringing at 2pm. Admittedly we’re all shuttered up against the cold and wind, but would have thought the odd peel might have gotten through.
It may have been optional.
Many bell ringers may have been at work.
I don’t think many of them are operated manually these days.
In other news the bar owner has been taken into custody but not his wife.
No bells here either.
Unless they are internet connected, someone will still need to turn off the automatic peals on site and switch on the special peals (or ring them manually).
(Just checked, many have an app so can be controlled remotely).
I just tried to find the one for our church on Google Play because I thought I could have some fun with but I guess it’s more difficult to access than that !