When it comes to a shaky understanding of earthquake prediction science, there’s more than one example to be found in Italy. In 2009, an Italian seismologist (with admittedly impeccable timing) enthralled media with claims he’d built a machine that accurately predicted a quake at L’Aquila in the Abruzzo region. More recently, thousands abandoned Rome to avoid a May 11 earthquake predicted by a long-dead Italian watchmaker with a penchant for planetary science.

Lately, though, misperceptions about earthquake prediction—still thought to be an impossibility by most scientists—have taken on a more hostile tone. So hostile, in fact, that six seismologists and a government official are on trial for manslaughter.

The charges stem from a public meeting in which prosecutors said the seven gave false reassurances that L’Aquila wouldn’t be struck by an earthquake, according to Nature News. A week later, 309 people died when a 6.3 magnitude temblor struck nearby.

“The scientific community tells me there is no danger,” the deputy technical head of Italy's Civil Protection Agency supposedly said in a press conference following the meeting, according to Nature. “The situation looks favourable.”

The statement, which wasn’t noted in the meeting minutes, will likely be the focus of the trial, with co-defendants pointing fingers at each other and denying culpability, Nature reports in another article. The recorded minutes, however, point to a different story, including a statement by Enzo Boschi, president of Italy’s National Institute for Geophysics and Vulcanology that, “a major earthquake in the area is unlikely but cannot be ruled out.”

At least one family member of the victims has said the trial is less about predicting earthquakes than it is about communicating responsibly about risk.

“Nobody here wants to put science in the dock,” Vincenzo Vittorini, who lost his wife and daughter, told Nature. “We all know that the earthquake could not be predicted, and that evacuation was not an option. All we wanted was clearer information on risks in order to make our choices.”