Alessio’s body was the first to be pulled from the rubble. After that they continued digging and hoping. The search was long and difficult, partly because a floor plan of the Casa dello Studente could not be found. Gabriele, one of the tenants who was able to get out safely, guided the firefighters as they tried to find his friends. He was the one who showed them where the rooms were, told them who was inside. It took three days to recover the bodies of the eight students who didn’t make it. Marco, Luciana, Michelone, Angela, Francesco, Luca, Davide and Alessio lost their lives under the rubble on the night of 6 April.

Victims of the earthquake, or so they were described. But perhaps that’s not accurate. According to the report of the experts appointed by L’Aquila’s public prosecutor, the collapse of the north wing of the Casa dello Studente was due not only to the earthquake but also to a series of flaws and attempts to cut corners during the design and implementation phase of the construction and subsequent improvements. The experts’ findings indicate that the collapsed wing was lacking a support column, unlike the other two wings which in fact held up: a support that was deliberately omitted from the plan. This omission led to a weakness in that part of the structure. The presence of the column would have been crucial in preventing the collapse. The lack of the pillar – the report reads – is one of the contributing factors leading to the collapse of that section of the building.

Of course, this is the judgement and these are the findings of one of the parties to the court proceedings, considerations that will have to be confirmed or not in the course of a criminal trial which will see eleven people charged. Nevertheless the report points out the following irregularities in the building’s construction:

1. Studies were never carried out to determine the suitability of the building to the intended change of purpose and use. It was a building zoned for shops, offices and residential occupancy.
2. The building had been maintained in a state of poor repair with regard to its structural elements.
3. The reinforcements at the base of the pillars were in very bad condition.
4. The concrete used was of inferior quality.
5. The structural design of the building was marked by serious flaws in planning and calculation.
6. In a highly seismic area, the force of seismic activity was not taken into account.
7. An additional basement level was put in beyond the one called for in the plan.
8. Work was carried out that was inconsistent with the permits issued.