L'Aquila quake: Italy scientists guilty of manslaughter


The BBC's Alan Johnston in Rome says the prosecution argued that the scientists were "just too reassuring"

Related Stories

Six Italian scientists and an ex-government official have been sentenced to six years in prison over the 2009 deadly earthquake in L'Aquila.

A regional court found them guilty of multiple manslaughter.

Prosecutors said the defendants gave a falsely reassuring statement before the quake, while the defence maintained there was no way to predict major quakes.

The 6.3 magnitude quake devastated the city and killed 309 people.

Many smaller tremors had rattled the area in the months before the quake that destroyed much of the historic centre.

It took Judge Marco Billi slightly more than four hours to reach the verdict in the trial, which had begun in September 2011.

Lawyers have said that they will appeal against the sentence. As convictions are not definitive until after at least one level of appeal in Italy, it is unlikely any of the defendants will immediately face prison.

'Alarming' case

The seven - all members of the National Commission for the Forecast and Prevention of Major Risks - were accused of having provided "inaccurate, incomplete and contradictory" information about the danger of the tremors felt ahead of 6 April 2009 quake, Italian media report.

The Apennines, the belt of mountains that runs down through the centre of Italy, is riddled with faults, and the "Eagle" city of L'Aquila has been hammered time and time again by earthquakes. Its glorious old buildings have had to be patched up and re-built on numerous occasions.

Sadly, the issue is not "if" but "when" the next tremor will occur in L'Aquila. But it is simply not possible to be precise about the timing of future events. Science does not possess that power. The best it can do is talk in terms of risk and of probabilities, the likelihood that an event of a certain magnitude might occur at some point in the future.

The decision to prosecute some of Italy's leading geophysicists drew condemnation from around the world. The scholarly bodies said it had been beyond anyone to predict exactly what would happen in L'Aquila on 6 April 2009.

But the authorities who pursued the seven defendants stressed that the case was never about the power of prediction - it was about what was interpreted to be an inadequate characterisation of the risks; of being misleadingly reassuring about the dangers that faced their city.

Nonetheless, the verdicts will come as a shock to all researchers in Italy whose expertise lies in the field of assessing natural hazards. Their pronouncements will be scrutinised as never before, and their fear will be that they too could find themselves embroiled in legal action over statements that are inherently uncertain.

In addition to their sentences, all have been barred from ever holding public office again, La Repubblica reports.

In the closing statement, the prosecution quoted one of its witnesses, whose father died in the earthquake.

It described how Guido Fioravanti had called his mother at about 11:00 on the night of the earthquake - straight after the first tremor.

"I remember the fear in her voice. On other occasions they would have fled but that night, with my father, they repeated to themselves what the risk commission had said. And they stayed."

'Hasty sentence'

The judge also ordered the defendants to pay court costs and damages.

Reacting to the verdict against him, Bernardo De Bernardinis said: "I believe myself to be innocent before God and men."

"My life from tomorrow will change," the former vice-president of the Civil Protection Agency's technical department said, according to La Repubblica.

"But, if I am judged by all stages of the judicial process to be guilty, I will accept my responsibility."

Another, Enzo Boschi, described himself as "dejected" and "desperate" after the verdict was read.

"I thought I would have been acquitted. I still don't understand what I was convicted of."

One of the lawyers for the defence, Marcello Petrelli, described the sentences as "hasty" and "incomprehensible".

'Inherently unpredictable'

The case has alarmed many in the scientific community, who feel science itself has been put on trial.


Bernardo De Bernardinis, former deputy chief of Italy's civil protection department
  • Franco Barberi, head of Serious Risks Commission
  • Enzo Boschi, former president of the National Institute of Geophysics
  • Giulio Selvaggi, director of National Earthquake Centre
  • Gian Michele Calvi, director of European Centre for Earthquake Engineering
  • Claudio Eva, physicist
  • Mauro Dolce, director of the the Civil Protection Agency's earthquake risk office
  • Bernardo De Bernardinis (pictured), former vice-president of Civil Protection Agency's technical department

Some scientists have warned that the case might set a damaging precedent, deterring experts from sharing their knowledge with the public for fear of being targeted in lawsuits, the BBC's Alan Johnston in Rome reports.

Among those convicted were some of Italy's most prominent and internationally respected seismologists and geological experts.

Earlier, more than 5,000 scientists signed an open letter to Italian President Giorgio Napolitano in support of the group in the dock.

After the verdict was announced, David Rothery, of the UK's Open University, said earthquakes were "inherently unpredictable".

"The best estimate at the time was that the low-level seismicity was not likely to herald a bigger quake, but there are no certainties in this game," he said.

Malcolm Sperrin, director of medical physics at the UK's Royal Berkshire Hospital said that the sentence was surprising and could set a worrying precedent.

"If the scientific community is to be penalised for making predictions that turn out to be incorrect, or for not accurately predicting an event that subsequently occurs, then scientific endeavour will be restricted to certainties only and the benefits that are associated with findings from medicine to physics will be stalled."


More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites


This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
  • rate this

    Comment number 1022.

    Does this mean that poor Michael Fish by the same token also could of been locked up? I hope not the world has no common sense what so ever now.....

  • rate this

    Comment number 1021.

    I agree with the indignation shown regarding the verdict. Have they considered the precedent they will set for those who will replace these scientists? They should cry wolf each time any tremor or other geological event occurs. Never mind how harmful and disruptive that may be. That way, this judge and these prosecutors will not be able to blame them.

  • Comment number 1020.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1019.

    The judges do not deserve science. Give them astrologers please.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1018.

    You can't blame someone for an earthquake!

  • rate this

    Comment number 1017.

    There are two tragedies here. The first is of justice, obviously, but the second is of the poor town that seems to have convinced itself that it has protected its interests. Whenever a mistake like this is made it hurts progress into really helping in the future. No amount of pain is an excuse for stupidity, because the stupidity always hurts people more in the ling run.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1016.

    I'm not saying the scientists are to blame, but they provide the data to the engineers. There's nothing (I'm assuming) wrong with the engineers calculations, rather the degree of uncertainty that they had to deal with. There comes a point where the probability of a freak accident occurring is outweighed by the cost of taking the extra precautions. Don't be so quick to blame the engineers.

  • Comment number 1015.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1014.

    Re "I hope nobody predicts correctly that I ran a cruise ship into a bunch of rocks. I would hate to see them go to jail."

    While I hate to see innocent people go to jail, those who helped incarcerate the scientists and those who led to the ruling are hardly innocent of a terrible thing. Justice system? Try "legal" and unethical. Could be amusing if someone framed them but why stoop so low?

  • rate this

    Comment number 1013.

    This verdict is preposterous. Send in the Flagellants!

  • rate this

    Comment number 1012.

    Remember the storm in 1987? How Michael Fish had, more or less, reassured a nation that while it would be windy the storm would pass mostly to the south? No-one expects a scientist - whether a meteorologist or a seismologist - to be 100% accurate. Today we know more than we ever used to but to blame these scientists for getting it wrong and communicating complex info simply? Now that is crazy!

  • rate this

    Comment number 1011.

    988: Treat v. cure. Researching DNA has led to breakthroughs for cystic fibrosis cases (certain mutations; not every CF patient has the same situation). Also an addict isn't "recovered" but "recovering" and if you don't believe me, maybe you never have known a real addict. On cures - amazing how people say they were "cured of cancer" and later it returns, huh? Wonder why that might be?(rhetorical)

  • rate this

    Comment number 1010.

    So the people who predict earthquakes are liable yet the people who build buildings that collapse and kill people are not????? I hope nobody predicts correctly that I ran a cruise ship into a bunch of rocks. I would hate to see them go to jail.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1009.

    After this decision when will they start to jail the weather men for getting the forecast wrong, they will need some very large jails!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • rate this

    Comment number 1008.

    This is a terrible precedent, and sends the worst possible message to the scientific community. If scientists are going to be charged with such serious offenses for being wrong, then the rest of us will lean towards keeping quiet when trying to help the general public. Science is never going to give perfect answers, but if we mete out punishment for imperfection, we will never get anywhere.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1007.

    Welcome to the dark ages, they will be stacking faggots of wood and burning any knowledgeable woman next.

    Who will judge the judge in this matter after convicting 7 innocent men, He has proven his incompetence as a dispenser of justice, abandoning common sense and reason. It is his own failing here that is deserving of incarceration.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1006.

    This is the same country that imprisoned Galileo; not much has changed. Italy may treat their artisans with honor; but Italian scientists are considered a liability.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1005.

    998. toysoldier
    Of course 2% is small. It's double 1%, but only the same distance away from 0%, ie NO RISK AT ALL.
    If they did say 'no danger' that was a mistake but....
    Normal people do not have the education (or time) to comprehend a complete evaluation of all the information the scientists had, so they gave a shortened version.
    If they're statistically accurate, what more can you expect.?

  • rate this

    Comment number 1004.

    These people did nothing intentionally wrong to cause harm to other individuals. A criminal conviction for misprediction is in itself a travesty. What benefit could these scientists possibly receive from not giving the proper alarm? None. Incompetence and maybe even anti-alarmist stances do not equate to criminality.

  • rate this

    Comment number 1003.

    Nightmare !!??
    Someone please pinch me (:(
    This can NOT be happening.


Page 1 of 52


More Europe stories



BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.