The L'Aquila trial

Abstract

The first stage of the trial in L'Aquila (Italy) ended with a conviction of seven experts, convened by the head of Civil Protection on 31 March 2009, for multiple manslaughter and serious injuries. They were sentenced to six years in jail, perpetual interdiction from public office and a fine of several million euros to be paid to the victims of the earthquake of 6 April 2009 (moment magnitude 6.3) for having caused, by their negligent conduct, the death of 29 persons and the injury of several others. The verdict had a tremendous impact on the scientific community and on the way scientists deliver their expert opinions to decision makers and society. This paper analyses the scientific argumentations reported in the Verdict Motivations, where scientific data and results were largely debated and misused to demonstrate that they should have been considered as a tool to predict an impending large earthquake. Moreover, we show that the supposed message of reassurance was not generated at the experts' meeting or by the official Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia reports. The media had a key role in conveying information during the seismic swarm, contributing to the risk perception. We stress that prevention actions based on seismic hazard knowledge are the best defence against earthquakes.'incomplete, imprecise and contradictory information on nature, causes, hazard and future development of the seismic activity, neglecting thus their duties to evaluate the connected risks and the function of forecasting, prevention and delivery of clear, correct and complete information'.

Does environmental archaeology need an ethical promise?

“…Much like Hulme's writing referred to above, this geo-ethical movement (see Henriksen 2005;Wyss and Peppoloni 2015) can be seen in light of current concerns for climate change and climate catastrophe, but also in relation to recent catastrophic environmental events such as the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake in central Italy and its dire consequences for lives and livelihoods. While now freed from these allegations, the scientists advising on quake prediction and likely consequences were originally charged with manslaughter (Cocco et al 2015). The process from the original charge to the eventual release of the scientists in question has been widely criticized by the scientific community (e.g.…”

“…The process from the original charge to the eventual release of the scientists in question has been widely criticized by the scientific community (e.g. Aarden 2012;Fast 2012;Boschi 2013;Cocco et al 2015), but has also led to some soul-searching in relation to the ethical commitment, responsibilities and legal status of advising scientists (Alemanno and Lauta 2014;Donovan and Oppenheimer 2014b). The current version of the proposed 'Geoethical Promise' (Matteucci et al 2014, 191) reads as follows:…”

The leap in the dark: Geological thoughts about an unpredictable planet

“…The common thread of this apparent contradiction is tightly interwoven in the events that followed the 2009 L'Aquila earthquake, in Italy, when more than 300 people were killed. In the aftermath of the disaster, scientists and public officials who provided an expert advice on the seismic sequence were charged with involuntary manslaughter [Cocco et al, 2015;Bretton et al, 2015]. As the trial unfolded, the statement that earthquakes cannot be predicted was paired with the accusation that complete, accurate, and clear information on the impending danger was not timely provided to the public.…”

Thermodynamics of Elastoplastic Porous Rocks at Large Strains Towards Earthquake Modeling

“…Correspondingly, they are intensively investigated by the geophysical community under various aspects, ranging from observation, to experiments and modeling. Despite the extensive information available, the possibility of offering reliable prediction of future events seems to be still out of reach [10].…”