Documents‎ > ‎

Rosenqvist Psychiatric Report 2011-12-20


Ila Prison and detention institution


The director, in
Executive Officer:

Randi Rosenqvist


As agreed, I had another conversation with Breivik after I had read parts of the forensic psychiatric statement and I had understood that he had too. I had a conversation for about an hour on the 19th of December at 13:45.

Initially, I reminded the prisoners that we had talked on November 1. I said as I had been surprised when I have the 3 November had heard from his lawyer that I should have told him things from the media coverage of his case at the time he had media bans. He stood amazed at this and wondered what I should have told him. I did not. He was very apologetic if I had hardship because of this, which I denied. I just said that I had assumed that he had lied about this. Then he said that it was the lawyer who had made a "dirty tricks" in connection with legal proceedings a few days later. This he would take up with the bailee next day.

I took up the forensic psychiatric statement. He said that he felt again in 10-20% of the experts had referred. The rest were fake, or that the experts had referred topics he had discussed in the manifesto, but that he had not taken a final decision. I asked not to be thought he had said these things in the long conversations that probably was tiring. This he denied. He also denied being irritated at the experts and tried to bluff with extreme views.

I asked him then what he thought about the experts' conclusions, he took those closest. Humorous also that he did not recognize himself in the whole thing has taken.

I asked what he really meant by the story that there should be a newspaper production by persons with a Nordic background. He said this was just an opportunity to bring up the birth rate in Norway was at 1.4 and should be higher. This he had discussed in the Manifesto. Another measure would be to stop encouraging women to higher education, but rather focus on home and family, and possibly give the man the "right" to the children. It meant he would discourage divorce and give more pregnancies. He believed that such measures had to be discussed before it was too late.

He argued further that Statistics Norway estimates of how many Muslims would be in Norway 2050 was incorrect. He pointed out that the SSB had no register of who had any religion. Register to join the religious community could not be used because it was only a minor part of the Muslim who was associated with a mosque. I then asked if he thought the others had gone underground, or if they were secular. He believed that many were assimilated, and they had nothing against. He stressed that he was neither a racist or national socialist.

I then asked if he thought he should be prime minister or president or something similar. This he denied, he said he was just one of many militant foot soldiers. He confirmed that he had been in London at the foundation of his order and later in Libya at the time of important meetings (Liberia? Out can not remember) and that the police had found a passport temples that confirmed this. He emphasized that there are many in Europe who think like him, but he is the first to have acted militant in Norway.

My question if it was not immoral to kill as many innocent people were answered that it was immoral not to do something about the danger that Europe is facing. He said that Norway was different now than before the July 22, and he hoped the opposition in society was much clearer. Then there could be a settlement (revolution?) In the past, a settlement then be able to overcome. If you did not speed up this process, will not settle come before it was too late. He explained that most Muslims in Norway vote Labour, so it was in that party's interest to import as many voters as possible. I stood in wonder at this and said that I just found it natural that people who fled authoritarian dictatorships voted with the left side. His comment was that if you had imported people from Japan, they would have voted conservative. 

He stressed that he was for all people's right to own land, Sami is also an indigenous peoples' in Afghanistan is the Pashtuns, in Tibet, Tibetans, and all had right to own land. As regards migrations in historic times, it seemed as though he had no special relationship to this. I asked what he thought about the EU. He said he definitely was for free trade, but were less certain on open borders. He said he did not know what he thought of the Schengen Agreement.

He looked up people with his political opinions had been censored and refused disclosure of arguments, so it was necessary assassination. He continued that for years had been the political opposition into the asylum. After the Second World War, many of Rinnan gang running the asylum, the same happened with Justice Minister Mikkelsen. You would not take their opinions seriously. I told them I knew Riisnæs minister. What I knew about Riisnæs was that many said he had "shouted to" an admission, in order to avoid being executed, and I had never heard of any Justice Mikkelsen. Breivik said that perhaps he thought was Riisnæs On.

Finally, I asked what he thought about it enough that he would be here a long time, he replied that he expected ever to be released. He said he would read the entire forensic psychiatric statement at Christmas, and that he looked forward to trial in April. He said that he and his counsel had discussed whether they would require two new experts, but they could decide after Christmas. I made it clear that when it was hardly a trial in April, it seemed he had not thought of, but he said that the course had to consider.


The entire conversation took place in the educated and friendly forms. Breivik showed different emotions, he thought something was entertaining (the experts' conclusions) and some were severe (the future of Europe). He had normal facial expression. He was handcuffed, and body movement was somewhat reduced. He did not seem in any way provoked when I accused him of lying, it seemed more as if he rejected the possibility, but that I could believe something like that. He emphasized that the police had taken him in one lie, which I said I had no knowledge about. He added that he did not want to tell the police everything.

The call progress fluently. He made good contact, and adapted his arguments to my questions. There was no latency or strange associations. The sentences were usually built. In this conversation did not present unusual phraseology. He showed flexibility in our discussion of Justice Riisnæs, but an over-bearing security in our discussion about how many Muslims would be in Norway in 2050. It seems that he wants to appear theoretically very well read with careful reasoning, but I find it surprising that he has little general historical knowledge and support his claims rather poor.

He turned to the camera in the room and said that this conversation was the recorded. I said I did not know if it was saved. It does not seem to be any paranoia in this. It was not until the second paranoid delusions (persecution, control of thoughts or megalomaniac performances) during the call. The perception of people with his political opinions are censored in Norway today, seems to have no psychotic quality.

In this conversation, he was clear that he did not have great prospects, but would remain in prison as a foot soldier. This disproves a grandiose idea, unless he "knows" that he really going to be ruler, but choose to present themselves as humble in conversation with me.

If so, then he manages very well to appear "normal" while he's psychotic material that he can not announce. I have experience with some psychotic people can do this, but they appear rather taciturn, not discursive, and are either silent or dismissive, or clearly psychotic when they are provoked or contradicted. Nevertheless, I would remark that he was seen striking distanced from what he has done. It seems that he regards it as an impersonal necessity. I have not qualified to assess whether he has looked at it all the more like a computer game than reality. His behavior indicates in my opinion, clear differences in personality.


I can not find signs of psychotic functioning. However, I'm not sure if he is telling the truth, even if he tries to give that impression. One could have hypothesized that he redefines the information he gets on a psychotic basis and thus have a reality bursting perception of the reality he has been through. I find this session. I find it more likely that he, like most of us, puts information and experiences into the world view he has formed. Thus f'ar he confirmed his own point of view. In the process he forms his own opinion, which he consciously or unconsciously trying to manipulate the environment with.

I think he clearly is able to say something and mean something else. Therefore, one must assume that if he had a desire to harm himself or others, he would not have announced this. It seems however, that today he is most concerned to pave the way for a trial in which he, we have the whole world as an audience. I reckon so constantly that he will not act out destructively before trial.

I see no reason to change the prison's handling of him, it appears that the procedures the Department G is adequate and that he has one, as appropriate, good quality of life with an intact lies.

Randi Rosenqvist Senior Adviser / psychiatrist