Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Seismologist Manslaughter Trial Begins Next Week

Posted by Soulskill on from the defining-reasonable-prognostication dept.

El Puerco Loco writes with a followup to a story we discussed in May about the manslaughter charges facing six seismologists and one government official in Italy after an earthquake there killed 309 people and destroyed 20,000 buildings. The case is going to trial next week, and an article at Nature provides an update on how things stand: "The indictments have drawn global condemnation. The American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), both in Washington DC, issued statements in support of the Italian defendants. ... The view from L'Aquila, however, is quite different. Prosecutors and the families of victims alike say that the trial has nothing to do with the ability to predict earthquakes, and everything to do with the failure of government-appointed scientists serving on an advisory panel to adequately evaluate, and then communicate, the potential risk to the local population. ... [The charges allege that the defendants] provided 'incomplete, imprecise, and contradictory information' to a public that had been unnerved by months of persistent, low-level tremors. [Prosecutor Fabio Picuti] says that the commission was more interested in pacifying the local population than in giving clear advice about earthquake preparedness. 'I'm not crazy,' Picuti says. 'I know they can't predict earthquakes. The basis of the charges is not that they didn't predict the earthquake. As functionaries of the state, they had certain duties imposed by law: to evaluate and characterize the risks that were present in L'Aquila.'"

6 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. Lack of evidence of damage.... by gtvr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can the prosecution prove that with proper warning, any specific number of lives or amount of property would have been saved? I doubt it.

    1. Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I won't live somewhere if I can't afford earthquake and flood insurance at that location. The insurance actuaries are better at calculating risk than I am :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does it matter (to them) if they can? Go read up on the Amanda Knox situation, and I think you'll get the same impression I did - Whether she's guilty or not, the Italian justice system is seriously screwed up.

      That this case can even make it to trial is a reinforcement of that belief.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    3. Re:Lack of evidence of damage.... by Sal+Zeta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nope. the crime is that they deliberately ignored all the information available at the moment, and they even suggested the people to get back at their own homes after some earthquakes had previously happened in such zones, even destroying some buildings. It's extremely probable that most of such research institutions were pressed to mislead the population due to the local government, which supported the speculative construction industry backed by some companies controlled by the local mafia.

      If you can understand, a well-known italian writer and journalist and journalist explained the whole affair here

      .

  2. Which is worse by alphatel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In America, climatologists get sued and harassed for making public statements about global warming.

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    1. Re:Which is worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You might as well say "heretic".

      Or equate them with holocaust deniers.