Update on legal facts on L'Aquila earthquake

[Mccoy]

thread1134-276036

The reference thread on the trial subsequent to the L'Aquila earthquake is closed, but know we have fresh news with this excellent article on nature:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110526/full/news.2011.325.html

The article really captures the essence of the facts. An example of good journalism.

 

[BigH]

Thanks McCoy - I saw a different article through

http://www.foxnews.com

. A slippery slope, I think. Convicted, you won't find a scientist or engineer who would serve on any committee that would be liable in a similar vein. I realize that this is a tragic event; what if the scientists voiced that an earthquake was imminent - every one evacuates, waits three years - nothing happens - then who wins? who loses?

This would be like charging scientists and meteorologists studying tornados and failing to predict where the big ones recently in the United States would "touch down" - you might be able to give a tornado watch prediction - but to tell where the thing hits - never be able to.

I'll watch this with interest - interesting, though, that a medical doctor is involved on the one side; how many mal-practice suits or screw-ups go without criminal charges. Over 30,000 Americans die each year of infections from staying in hospitals - yet the hospital administrators are not charged . . .

Cheers - just listening to some good jazz now - hope you enjoy what I sent . . .

 

[Mccoy]

BigH,
I read the foxnews article but it goes on decribing only one aspect of the facts. As a matter of fact it is a little biased, that's why I posted the other one which is more balanced.

It is true that the poor Boschi in 1994 was charged because he prompted the evacuation of a village in Tuscany after a swarm hit the area. Nothing happened. Now he's charged because he told the earthquake was unlikely. And it happened. No release to the man who sure is a good chap.

To sum it up, the issue is not the missed prediction or the missed evacuation, the DA is not so fool, the issue is a presumed excessive underestimation of the risk, conveyed to the population, with a causative effect on deaths.

What triggered the legal charge was the public declaration of one member of the panel, who went only six days before the mainshock: "You can stay reassured and sit down relaxed drinking a glass of good red wine, nothing will happen".

I'm sure nobody of us in his right mind would have ever dreamed to issue such a public declaration.

Also, the police detectives recorded a phone conversation (during investigations related to other issues)which would suggest that the opinion of the commission had a littel 'push' toward the underestimation to counteract the guy who was publicly announcing the earthquake, mr. Giuliani. So it gets a little more tangled than what it may appear at first.

Enough with this and down to serious discussion,

yes, I'm definitely enjoying the records you sent and what I keep listening to is the Nick Brignola group, the 'Like old times' album is just awesome, as I said 'You go to my head' bossa-style became one of my favourites.