The indictments, trials, and guilty verdicts for scientists and public officials tasked with assessing the risk of earthquakes for the L'Aquila region prior to the 2009 quake challenge many of the assumptions underlying current theories of risk and public scientific communication: this paper explores its potential impact, proposing an alternative to the most common prognostications. Although scientific bodies have warned of the “chilling effect” the verdicts may have on real scientists engaging in dialogue with the public and public agencies in the management of risk, the possible impacts are much more complex. In fact, the replacement of responsibility with culpability may result in a freer flow of information to the public, which both presents opportunities and challenges to risk management. Such freedom of information, especially if accompanied by a lack of willingness on the part of scientists to engage in the conversation, will force a reconsideration of conventional models of popular science communication, roles of specific agents in the process, and ultimately, the goals of risk communication altogether. In this scenario, the concept of providing the right advice for an uninformed public ignorant of the data underlying the situation needs give way to a more participatory model for risk communication, one that is audience aware and necessarily acknowledges the probabilistic, rather than deterministic, nature of the predictive sciences.