Defying assertions that earthquakes cannot be predicted, an Italian court has convicted seven scientists and experts of manslaughter for failing to adequately warn residents before a quake struck central Italy in 2009 and killed more than 300 people.

The court in L'Aquila also sentenced the defendants to six years each in prison. All are members of the national Great Risks Commission, and several are prominent scientists or geological and disaster experts.

Scientists had decried the trial as ridiculous, contending that science has no reliable way of predicting earthquakes. So news of the verdict shook the tightknit community of earthquake experts worldwide.

"It's a sad day for science," said seismologist Susan Hough, of the US Geological Survey in Pasadena, California. "It's unsettling."

That fellow seismic experts in Italy were singled out in the case "hits you in the gut," Hough added.
Full story here NZHerald http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10842267

Sorry Deano did not realize that you had put it on as well.
I decided to do further research on the matter as all the headlines did not make sense to me - with failing to predict an earthquake - owing to everyone knowing that they are imposible to predict.. 
Came up with an article witten by the Times Europe which I have put on here as my second article which says in part of the body of it

The seismologists were charged not with failing to predict the earthquake but for wrongly reassuring the public about the risk. 

it was that they reassured the public after getting two previous quakes prior to the 6.3 mag one that there was nothing to worry about.
I do think that the newspapers here should be taken to task for reporting what most of the newspapers have written round the world,
There is a massive difference between "failing to predict" and as to "reassuring the public that everything was OK" which they should not have done with their history and also being seismic the same as us.

Fully agree.

but maybe in hindsight (great thing that)
they should have not been saying that its all going to be ok
and instead taken more of a middle ground

but then they would be accused of causing unnecesary fear if it did not occur

i.e they would be dammed if they did and dammed if they didnt either way?