  This article is a commentary on the verdict of the "L'Aquila Six", the group
of bureaucrats and scientists tried by an Italian court as a result of their
public statements in advance of the quake of 2009 Apr. 6 that left the city in
ruins and cause more than 300 deaths. It was not the worst such catastrophic
event in recent Italian history, but it was one of -- if not the -- worst
failures of risk assessment and preventive action. The six were found guilty
and condemned by a first level of the justice system to substantial prison
terms. The outcry provoked by the verdict in the world press and the
international scientific community has fueled the already fiery debate over
whether the six should have been tried at all. They have been presented as
martyrs to science being treated as scapegoats by a scientifically illiterate
justice system and inflamed local population for not being able to perform the
impossible (predict the event). Petitions of support have been drafted and
signed by thousands of working scientists and technical experts in many fields
excoriating the court and the country for such an outrage against the
scientific community, often accompanied by ominous warnings about the chilling
effect this will have on the availability of expert advice in times of need. My
purpose in this essay is to explain why this view of the events of the trial is
misguided, however well intentioned, and misinformed.
