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 702.

    How absurd and unjust! This sounds like something from the dark ages!

  • rate this

    Comment number 701.

    696. FrTed
    It had been internet gossip for years, now it's mainstream. Make your own mind up.
    Back to L'Aquila, how many have read the Italian media's comments?
    I confess that I haven't, and will do.

  • rate this

    Comment number 700.

    It's no ones fault earthquakes are natural. People just live in the wrong place. The judge wants the sack. I have never heard anything so stupid in my life. Those scientists have worked hard to get where they are.

  • rate this

    Comment number 699.

    This is ridiculous. Science doesn't deal in certainties, but always only probabilities. It will create a dangerous precedent where scientists will be too nervous to make any (probabilistic) conclusions. This ruling will result in less forthcoming information.

  • rate this

    Comment number 698.

    Burn them, burn them, burn them....

    More like Italy 1612 rather than 2012. Absolutely ridiculous.

  • rate this

    Comment number 697.

    So now the rational scientist defines the worst case scenario and promulgates it as the only guide to decision-making. The judge has set aside the exceptional benefits of developments in decision theory and has sought to create a culture that will impoverish life, and in which millions will suffer, and many die, as a result. Arguably a case for the judge's prosecution

  • rate this

    Comment number 696.

    688. parkthebuskickandrush

    "6 months ago one would have been moderated for saying Savile was a paedo.... The truth is out there."

    I am not aware that any court of law of official enquiry has found Jimmy Saville guilty of any crime.

    The science of prediction is full of pitfalls.

  • rate this

    Comment number 695.

    As an Italian I say: they should jail those that build buildings in a highly seismic area with dodgy concrete supplied by the mob, those who were laughing the night of the disaster, predicting lucrative (and curropted) government deals for themselves, the government who shamelessly used the situation to gain popularity and then followed the hallow promises with empty pockets.

  • rate this

    Comment number 694.

    This is omminous. Scientists could predict a disaster and be charged costs if they get is wrong, or predict safety and be imprisoned if that is wrong. With unpredictable earthquakes, the scientist always loses

  • rate this

    Comment number 693.

    It appears that judges get a good education in the letter of the law but lack education in common sense.

  • rate this

    Comment number 692.

    670. wrote , 'they said, "Nothing to worry about, let's go have some wine!" So they collected easy money and prestige position, then left their duty on a precipice.'
    670 so I presume you think the scientist duty was to predict the future? How do you do predicting the future in specific terms? Did the scientist cause the quake or know its' coming for certain? or are you a lawyer?

  • rate this

    Comment number 691.

    if the scientists had said great chance of a quake and people had their houses burgled while they evacuated the town the scientist would have been guilty of that - Why can't people be responsible for their own actions BUT always have to find someone else to blame - Looks like the American litigious fever strikes in Italy. What happened to sensible Judges?

  • rate this

    Comment number 690.

    The problem lies not with the scientists who were doing their best but in seeking their advice in the first place when they cannot predict the future on such a serious matter, when lives are at risk it's better to be safe than sorry, the people should be evacuated automatically as standard, up to such a time as when these things really can be accurately predicted.

  • rate this

    Comment number 689.

    17 Minutes ago
    "Seems simple to me...If there was a 50% probability they should say so. If it was 10% then say that. Use sciencc to help."

    Perhaps because it is not a case of straightforward probabilities - there are too many variables.

  • rate this

    Comment number 688.

    Oh dear. Suggest that B-lIAR didn't euphemistically give an accurate account of events and get moderated. BBC, Pravda would be proud!
    6 months ago one would have been moderated for saying Savile was a paedo....
    The truth is out there.

  • rate this

    Comment number 687.

    Tim @678 Actually, I don't think Galileo is completely off the hook yet with the Inquisition. They may yet dig him up for further iterrogation.

    At least Galileo was dealing with certainty. The problem with probability is that (assuming you're honest) you give your best estimate before the event, but afterwards every **** knows the answer.

  • rate this

    Comment number 686.

    Ah ha! The blame culture again. The law is an ass.

  • rate this

    Comment number 685.

    This just in:
    The Italian courts have ordered that the ground beneath L'Aquila be given 50 lashes and all witches must pay a fine of 200 Ducats for their role in provoking God's wrath.

    (Makes about as much sense as this ruling)

  • rate this

    Comment number 684.

    651. Jim Garner
    ."..Yet the article doesn't report what the scientists actually said..."

    Hi Jim, Don`t you see? It`s totally irrelevant. They got it wrong. They said the wrong thing. They made a mistake. They misled people. They gave people the wrong impression. They fouled up.
    Science eh?
    It was the best they could do.

  • rate this

    Comment number 683.

    Insane. Look out for Italians burning an old woman at the stake because the grape harvest wasn't very good.


Page 17 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.