Transcripts‎ > ‎

Anders Behring Breivik Court Transcript 2012-04-25 Live Report


NRK: -

VG: -


Wednesday April 25, 2012 - Day 8

08.40 The first expert pair, Synne Sørheim and Torgeir Husby, has arrived in the hall. They speak with one of the other court psychiatrist, Agnar Aspaas, which is also in place.

08.48 Coordinating counsel Siv Hallgren has also come to the courtroom.

08.50 Now the defenders arrive. Relatives and survivors begin to get seated in room 250

08.53 Breivik has now been brought into the courtroom.

08.55 Attorney Ellen Holager Andenæs also in place in court today. She is counsel for Eivind Dahl Thoresen, who will testify today.

08.59 The judges come into the courtroom 250

09.00 Judge Arntzen: - The court is set. Before we continue with the review I will address briefly what we can expect under the current program. We end the review of the deceased in the government quarter and get expedited testified Thoresen prosecutor?

09.01 Prosecutor Svein Holden: - Distinguished District Court. There was little dialogue about the setup of today's planning yesterday afternoon. We end the first TESTIMONIES yesterday. Then Dal Eivind Thoresen, statements to the police and medical certificates, [name omitted] and [name omitted] who have a valid excuse. After that, the accused shall be given an opportunity to comment.

09.01 Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: - It sounds alright. Are there any comments from the defense side?

09.02 Defender Vibeke Hein Bæra: - No, Lippestad not meet today.

09.02 Arntzen: - I will also mention that yesterday I had a brief conversation with experts Tørrissen and Aspaas, and we agreed that they submit their supplementary report over the weekend.

09.03 Witness Ole Morten Størseth: - Then shall we start with fatalities number 5, Hanne Marie Orvik Endresen. She was in the reception area on the ground floor when the bomb exploded, and died immediately of the extensive damage caused by the shock wave and shrapnel / objects that hit her. She was also carried to the ambulance where she was pronounced dead. [Details omitted]

09.05 The victim's counsel Morten Engesbak: - I can inform the court that Hanne Marie Orvik Endresen was hired as a receptionist in ministry service and was at work when the bomb went off.

09.06 Expert Arne Stray-Pedersen: - Death occurred almost instantaneously.

09.07 Assists Attorney General has no questions to Størseth and Arne Stray-Pedersen.

09.07 Størseth: - When is the next Kjersti Berg Sand. She was found on the back of the H-block on the side facing Akersgata. She was in the reception area on the ground floor of high-rise, and died instantly of massive injuries to the head and body caused by the shock wave and shrapnel / objects that hit her.

09.09 The victim's counsel Change Refsdal - Kjersti Berg Sand was employed as a lawyer in the civil department of Justice, and was at work that day to finalize a report on the increased use of mediation as an alternative to imprisonment.

09.10 Expert Arne Stray-Pedersen - The autopsy of Kjersti Berg Sand showed that death occurred immediately.

09.10 Judge Arntzen asks about the pictures that explains the report appearing on the screen.

09.11 Prosecutor Svein Holden responded that the photos only given to the court actors.

09.12 Stray-Pedersen proceed with the information from the autopsy.

09.12 Next victim is Kai Hauge.

09.13 Størseth: - Next then Kai Hauge. He was found at R4. He was passing Grubbegata along the sidewalk and came right at the corner of the canteen building when the car was in exploded. Hauge was in Grubbegata at the entrance to the H-block's main entrance, and died instantly of massive injuries to the head, chest and abdomen caused of the shock wave and shrapnel / objects that hit him.

09.15 Expert Arne Stray-Pedersen: - Death occurred instantaneously at Kai Hauge.

09.16 Lawyer: - Kai Hauge had a degree in economics from the School and took courses at the university. Approximately six months before he was killed, he bought a bar-restaurant Blue prescription. Hauge was a passerby.

09.18 Størseth: - The latest casualties we shall discuss are Tove Knutsen Åshill. She was found ahead of R4 on the opposite side of Grubbegata in relation to the explosion site. She was going to walk in the direction of Grubbegata and was near the fountain outside the main entrance to R4 when the bomb exploded. She was near the fountain at Einar Gerhardsens space, and soon died of extensive injuries to the neck and chest caused by shock wave and shrapnel / objects that hit her.

09.19 Expert Arne Stray-Pedersen: - Death occurred after a short time by Tove Knutsen Åshill.

09.20 Lawyer: - For court information, she was on her way home from work. She worked as an administrative secretary in Electrical and IT-related. She was also a passerby because she had delivered the bike she used to use and would take the subway.

09.21 Prosecutor Holden: - When can we plan in a twenty minute break?

09.21 Arntzen: - When we're done with this part of the presentation of evidence.

09.22 Lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen and Siv Hallgren want to ask questions before the break: - We have a general question for Stray-Pedersen. It runs on the physical damage from exposure to the inhalation of dust and stuff, asbestos and gases during such an explosion?

09.23 Stray-Pedersen: - I can answer some general observations about it. The gases formed in the explosion disappear quickly in open space. But dust avalanches of buildings and all that can be stirred up can also cause damage. It's all about how long you are exposed to it, and if they are at risk, such as sensitive airways.

09.24 Lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen: - One more thing, the administrator must only be informed before we proceed. An expert who examined the victim is present today. He's called Are Holen, Professor of Psychiatry, so that the court is aware that he is following this matter today and tomorrow.

09.24 The court pauses until 09:45.

09.46 Breivik is back in room 250.

09.46 The judges are in place.

09.46 Judge Arntzen: - When the court is sitting. We continue the negotiations, and we have a new witness. Can I get your full name.

09.47 Eivind Dahl Thoresen takes witness stand.

09.47 Witness: - It is Eivind Dahl Thoresen.

09.48 Judge Arntzen asks him to ensure that he testify truthfully. Thoresen promises.

09.48 Prosecutor Bejer Engh to the witness: - Where were you on 22 July?

09.48 Thoresen: - On 22 July I worked as a summer substitute in Obos and they keep on Hammersborg squares.

09.49 - I went there around 15.20 and spoke with a friend on the phone to get updates on the Tour de France, and walked in my own world as I got the update from this friend.

09.49 - I went down Grubbegata and then I came right past the S-block, next to the statue. And I can show you with the arrow. [Thoresen shows the cursor on the map screen where he went, down Grubbegata. As he walked past the S-block hit it. He has set himself on video that confirms it.]

09.50 - I know the video is shown in court, where I see myself.

09.50 - Right in front of the statue, then the explosion.

09.50 Engh: - What do you remember from when the bomb went off?

09.50 Thoresen: - I remember really all together. I fainted 2 or 3 times, but it was the first situation. What I remember at least is that I first heard a big bang. I can understand that it might not be true, but that's what I remember.

09.51 - Also, I see the flames coming from the right. As a reaction I put my arms in front of my face to protect it. Then I was blasted backward like two, two or four feet, it looks like a movie. When I raise myself up, I'm really just very warm, I feel no pain, I can compare it to sitting in a sauna for too long. I hear nothing, my ears just beep. I look around me and the first thing I notice is that it burns in R4.

09.52 - I look forward to the high-rise and see the extensive damage and think right away where I found myself this art had to be a bomb. [Dahl Thoresen describes how he sees the damage to one of the survivors who were close to him after the explosion]. I see a man dragging himself past me. I think he must get help and I know no pain. If I should describe his eyes, it's like he said, "Are you going to help me? Look at yourself!"

09.53 Until he meets the gaze of the other man, he doesn't understand that he is seriously injured.

09.53 Thoresen: - It was completely surreal, I could not believe that so much blood was coming out of my own body.

09.54 - I tried to stop the blood with my hand, but then the flow got only thicker. My dark blue jeans were red, drenched in blood. And I and [name omitted] cried for help in unison, and we saw people running away. They noted that we were there and saw that we needed help, but were probably in shock and ran away. So then we thought that if no one comes, we die.

09.55 - And it was perhaps a minute, but it's hard to know exactly the time went. But I think it was around one minute. It will take a person away, and there will be a person from the S-block. He keeps his hands on his head and says, "I have no idea what to do." My survival instinct kicks in, I had a bag with me because I was going to Stavanger that afternoon. I told him he could use my clothes to tie around where it was bleeding. I said he could start with the left arm since it was where I was bleeding the most. Then there's two people, I'm a little unsure of who's coming. There is also a colleague of mine from OBOS coming who had seen me.

09.57 - And he recognized me as I lay there and came over to me. At about the same time came another person [Thoresen mention these two individuals by name]. They come out and continue the work that was started. He was almost in a state of shock and he has told me that he went back in the S-block. They then started to use my clothes and tie around other parts of the body. They found a board that they used to tighten extra hard around a bleeding.

09.58 - When I saw the plank, I thought it was inside my thigh, so then I fainted. [Name omitted] had knowledge of first aid. He had experienced bomb situations before in Kurdistan, and made sure to keep the airway open. He hit me in the face to keep me awake two three times I fainted. Then a police lady came and told the two that they must get away, because there is another bomb. But they refuse to go, for they will be there. She says it's fine, but it is at your own risk. Can not remember her saying that. She gives away her baton before she goes ahead and see that the two are really doing what they can, which is used to stop a second bleeding.

10.00 - And still I feel very little pain. I'm just alternately cold and warm and I think at least ... As portrayed in the movies I've seen, so it is not a positive sign. So then I was sure I was going to die. Along the way, I ask them several times if my legs are there, because I did not feel my legs, and I was at an angle that made it hard to see. So I thought maybe that was why I did not feel anything, because I had lost my legs, but they said 'no, they're there'.

10.01 - And that was very chaotic situation. I remember [name omitted] called the ambulance several times. He asked where they were and started to yell at them because they did not come. According to him, it took 14 minutes before they came to the place. Then the paramedics and they start cutting up my pants. They were concerned about the plank which was stcck in the leg, and that I had lost so much blood. He estimated that I had lost about two liters of blood, and then we drove the ambulance he did not believe I would survive.

10.02 - When the ambulance came, they continued first aid and eventually came with a stretcher as they carried me into the ambulance. [Thoresen, of course, when he moved to trial recounting what he experienced on 22 July.] They had also been told that there could be another bomb. I remember the ambulance driver said: "Hell, fuck. now we must run as fast as hell, for it's gonna blow again."

10.03 - I asked him if I was going to die. And he said no, this here is fine. He said afterwards that he lied maybe a little then. But here I am glad he said it, as I certainly believed it myself. And he was one who helped me, came with what was left of my bag. Police had taken most of my clothes to cover the dead and injured.

10.03 The witness takes a break and drinks water.

10.04 - So he insisted on throwing it into the ambulance and then said well the ambulance driver that "fuck the damn bag, we have to get out of here fast as hell." But ironically enough so I felt a certain relief that the bag was a ... Then I remember that the sirens had stopped working because I did not really understand why they did not use the siren. I was still conscious and I remember that I asked him to call my girlfriend, for now she was probably scared. I gave him the number and other personal information, and he promised to call. He cursed the whole way, the driver drove quite fast.

10.05 - Without siren can certainly be a challenge. It was a bumpy ride. When we got to the hospital we were met by a team of doctors and a doctor came up to me and said, "We have to operate on you at once." I had symptoms of internal bleeding. He told me to come in anesthesia soon enough, they had to use an anesthetic agent that would make me hallucinate. I said it was fine, as long as they fixed me. Then I was taken into the operating table and then I also hallucinated. Should I go into what I was hallucinating?

10.06 Bejer Engh: - It may well.

10.06 Thoresen: - It was so real to me that I thought it happened. [Thoresen describes that he envisioned what happened in surgery]. I wanted to let you know I have not been given enough anesthetic.

10.06 - I was awake. Then just gargling sounds out of my mouth. So I thought that now I might be brain dead, and I try to tell that it is no joke that you operate more. Then I suddenly saw pictures of my childhood. Also saw was all black suddenly, and then I heard in the distance that: Damn, I lost him. But luckily they did not. Because I woke up the next day.

10.07 Engh: - What did you learn then?

10.07 Thoresen: - The first thing I asked was whether they used the defibrillator on me. I thought I had been a goner for a few seconds. Then said they had not done so, and that they had full control when they saw that I had internal bleeding. And it had really been all the time.

10.07 Engh: - How long were you in the hospital?

10.07 Thoresen: - I was there exactly three weeks. I was tired of the hospital, they tried to hold me back. But I wanted out.

10.08 Lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen dries tears.

10.08 Engh: - Can you tell us about the injuries you suffered?

10.08 Thoresen: - I got torn a nerve, all this is splinter injuries, we can go a little more into detail on the damage. Torn nerve in my left arm, and another splinter injury in the left forearm and burns. It is probably my reaction when I lifted up my arms. [He describes several splinter injuries.] Three or four splints. When I say splints, it is possible that there were more. But all the impact wounds are covered now.

10.09 Engh - Have you any idea how many times you had surgery?

10.09 Thoresen: - I have been operated five times. Recent surgery just before Easter because they found a new splinter in my leg.

10.10 Engh: - During three weeks at Ullevål, how many operations did you get then?

10.10 Thoresen: - I was operated on four times.

10.10 Engh: - What was the reason they had to operate on you so many times the first time?

10.10 Thoresen: - When I came in they would not sew up or transplant skin to the places where there was shrapnel, for they were afraid that there could be several splinters left there. I do not know how it is with infections and stuff, but I was told it was one of the reasons they would not sew again.

10.11 - So I lay with open wounds in a few days and it was gradually fixed again, those who could. In a place on the thigh to the transplanting skin that was not allowed to sew it again.

10.11 Defendant seems to be interested in Thoresens explanation, but looks otherwise untouched.

10.11 Engh: - Do the injuries you suffered you have any implications for you today? I see you walk on crutches.

10.11 Thoresen: - Yes, because the last operation was just before Easter. So those I can probably get me in next week hopefully, but I notice that I'm struggling with loud noises and loud bangs and then I get scared.

10.12 - But I rather have tried to reverse this, ie that I survived, turning it into something positive and rather be glad to be alive. People react differently, but I'm certainly very happy that I reacted this way.

10.12 Engh: - Has this helped you in any way?

10.13 Thoresen: - Yes, absolutely. It has helped me to think positively and always set myself small goals all the time to get me back up.

10.13 Engh: - But what do the doctors say about the damage your physical, you will eventually be fine?

10.13 Thoresen: - No, that is the nerve that was cut has led to slightly reduced feeling in a few fingers in the left arm that has not come back. And they can not say if it's coming back or not. They assume that I should be able to go running again on both, so I assume it is virtually one hundred percent affordable.

10.14 Engh: - What about physical pain, how it has been during this period, from the first day you?

10.14 Thoresen: - No, it was the immense pain throughout the first week in the hospital. Then I was naturally on very much medication, anesthesia. So it took the brunt of it.

10.14 - In retrospect, I have struggled with severe abdominal pain that they have not figured out what it is, but they think it can be related to that they operated on me for internal bleeding. I have been admitted to the hospital for two to three times because of this.

10.15 Bejer Engh: - Have they found out?

10.15 Thoresen: - No they do not know what it is. Last time I had it was the 8th or 9th of March. There have been approximately once a month. The theory is that there may be something that happens when you move things in the stomach. They hope it will go away by itself. Any new operation could hurt more than it already is.

10.16 Bejer Engh: - But what of the pain now?

10.16 Thoresen: - No, but when I get a stomach ache I go to pretty powerful painkillers.

10.16 Engh: - To get here today, it must have been a tremendous strain. But if you think away today, then, and these days of trial. How are you?

10.16 Thoresen hesitates a bit.

10.17 Thoresen: - No, it ... there are some, well, what I said in the place that I've been trying to think positive all the time. And taught me to appreciate the things I did before. I'm getting bored me and get scared when I hear loud bangs.

10.17 Engh: - You started by saying you had a summer job. What did you mean, what did you do? You study, right?

10.18 Thoresen: - Yes, I study. Student loan rates are not just very good.

10.18 Engh: - What kind of study?

10.18 Thoresen: - I'm still studying, and I study law.

10.18 Engh: - How far did you come?

10.18 Thoresen: - I had one semester left.

10.18 Engh: - How has it gone?

10.18 Thoresen: - I should have gone abroad as exchange student, went bad when it was starting there. I thought right away that if I fail to take the exam it will be a huge bonus.

10.19 - For then I dealt with a lot of rehabilitation and physical therapy and it was much time and it was hard to concentrate even when sitting down to read. But I managed to complete one exam, but it was not enough to finish, so then I have an exam again.

10.19 Engh: - But then, aid lawyer sat behind here, then perhaps she also some questions?

10.19 Lawyer Ellen Holager Andenæs: - I'm a lawyer Ellen Holager Andenæs. It was taken a picture of you, who took the photo? [Holager Andenæs shows a picture of Thoresen with a lot of blood on the pants, sweater and face]

10.20 The court will see a picture of Thoresen lying on the ground 22 July. Thoresen's white t-shirt is bloody. The arms and facial area are also covered in blood.

10.20 Andenæs asks about the picture taken of him, and Thoresen says that one of the assistants took the picture.

10.20 Thoresen: - It was one of those who helped me with first aid. The picture says more than many words. Yes it supports both parts of what I have said so far, yes.

10.21 [Andenæs ask Thoresen can tell around the image and about clothing that was used to connect the left arm]

10.21 Andenæs: - Now the prosecutor asked you the vast majority of questions about this. Now we don't have to confirm this any more. But how has your daily life been after you were in the hospital? Is there something that has changed?

10.21 Thoresen: - It is clear that I had no physical limitations earlier. I've been on crutches long and now again. And it leads automatically to making life difficult. I've played football all my life.

10.22 Andenæs: - Yes, can you elaborate on that?

10.22 Thoresen: - I played active football was in 3rd Division. I've played football all my life and it has not been possible after 22 July. Before they found the last pin, I tried to jog, but it was not possible. There is a good explanation that they found the pin in his thigh.

10.22 Andenæs: - So you have a clear objective to come back?

10.22 Thoresen: - Yes.

10.22 Andenæs: - Studies and exchange to Amsterdam, you could take it this semester?

10.23 Thoresen: - The school was open to transfer the application to this semester. But I did not want to be away from physical therapy and not in terms of abdominal pain I had and I would be close to those who had my journal.

10.23 Andenæs: - So you've given up on the possibility that? You should take your final exam and maybe find a job in the fall?

10.23 Thoresen: - Yes.

10.23 Andenæs: - There was some talk that you had psychological repercussions. Have you had any conversations with the psychologist?

10.24 Thoresen: - I had some conversations with a psychologist while I was in the hospital and has really always talked very openly about what happened. She said it was positive and it seemed like I handled it well. So I've probably had 1:05 to 6:00 conversations at the hospital.

10.24 Andenæs: - And what was that?

10.24 Thoresen: - I have not had any contact after that.

10.25 Judge Arntzen: - When we arrived at the reading of statements to the police.

10.25 Now the prosecutor read out from the police statements of witnesses who appear in court.

10.26 Holden: - Distinguished District Court. The court therefore decided that Vidar Vestli is acquitted of witness duty. And then, prosecutors made it clear that we want to read out his statement to the police. So let's get to it.

10.27 - The one in question is thus Vidar Vestli. First, I will discuss his statements to the police. This is an interview that was conducted at hospital Sunnaas on 20 October 2011. "The victim is a graduate, he is married with Sissel Vestli, victims are at Sunnaas for rehabilitation after injuries he received 22 July. He lives on Nesodden. The victim went to fetch his wife Sissel working in the Justice Department. He ran up Grubbegata and had parked at the fountain and stood and waited. He remembers a white van parked there and that there was some guys around it. He had gone out of his car when the explosion. He saw a person who went up Grubbegata. When it hit, then it shook violently".

10.30 - "H-block shook and he saw a flame just a few meters from the Fountain. The victim does not remember that he fell, but he got up, ran a few yards and rolled over again."

10.30 - He shouted for help and there was a person with a camera and photographed. [Vestli explained the details of how he saw the condition his body was in].

10.32 - "There were two people who put a strap on the leg to the victim. These were passers-by. Suddenly, the wife of the victim with a colleague".

10.33 - "The victim was put into one of the first ambulances and there was a very professional device that took care of him."

10.33 - "The victim added that his wife came up to the victim and supported him while they waited for the ambulance. He got a splinter in his face and chest. One of them almost punctured his lung."

10.34 - The victim said he had a guardian angel. The chest was full of splinters. The victim can not remember much.

10.34 - "The victim was asked to describe the incident further and were asked to focus on the people he saw before and after the bombing. The victim explained that a person came up Grubbegata when the bomb hit, but do not know where he was off "

10.34 - "The victim added that he concentrated on looking after his wife. After the bombing, aggrieved thought about what had happened to [name omitted], and where she was, since she was in the H-block."

10.34 - "Physical health: The victim was bed-ridden to account for the damage. He said there was a load of shrapnel. He got a splinter in his head that was taken out, and it is believed that there are one or two shrapnel left in his head that has not been taken out".

10.35 - "Doctors are continuing to investigate whether there are other injuries. The victim testified that the doctors would save his foot, but they could not".

10.35 - "Right foot of the aggrieved party got lasting damage just below the knee. The victim received 12 to 13 operations and been put under anesthesia fourteen times after July 22 "

10.36 - "When asked about his physical health before the bomb, he explained that it was normal and that he was the year before had trained four to five times a week. He explains that he reads worse, he should check his sight, but do not know if he looks worse after the accident".

10.36 - So he wants the defendant convicted of this relationship and exempts health care providers. I announced that I was going to focus on two medical certificates.

10.37 - The first I shall read is a medical certificate from Oslo University hospital. There is some medical terms. Permit me to take a rather free rendering in relation to the terms.

10.38 [Holden reads medical declarations]

10.40 Holden: - The following is a summary of damage. [Holden reads these].

10.42 - It was the first statement I wanted to document. [Holden reads the new medical certificate].

10.43 The victims still need follow-up and will be 45-47 percent permanent medical invalid. He is 100 percent incapacitated indefinitely.

10.44 Holden has finished its part of the documentation.

10.45 Neither aid or defense lawyers have further questions, or anything they want to add.

10.45 Neither aid or defense lawyers have further questions, or anything they want to add.

10.46 Arntzen: - Then we can move on to the next prosecutor. It is Tone Maria With. Who represents her in the counsel?

10.46 Larsen - I represent her.

10.47 Engh: - Then I should document in relation to Tone Maria With. I agreed with counsel Larsen what to recite, it is therefore not everything. The victim had to do much that day. She spoke to her father on the phone. She was supposed to go to Ekeberg, but did not go off. She first went on GlasMagasinet and took a coffee, then she went to Clas Ohlson in Torg street.

10.48 - "The victim was wondering if she was going to a shop. Pro forma they add that this is called Arakan"

10.48 - "The victim was out of cat food, so she had to buy cat food. The victim therefore took the 37 bus which was in Akersgata".

10.49 - "This choice has plagued the victim really in retrospect. The victim has not thought before, that to choose a path can lead to other consequences than to choose than other way".

10.49 - "The victim wrote a message to her daughter while she was in Torg str. Something wrong with the network that day did she not reached. She was in her own thoughts, thinking she was going to go over the government area to take 37 bus".

10.50 - "The victim did not realize where she was. Suddenly it hit. The victim thought to go over the government space to take 37 bus".

10.50 - "The victim knew nothing. It was so sudden, like an earthquake or the like. It was like a nightmare and wanted to get away. She went to the fountain, but is not sure where she was in relation to this when the bomb hit".

10.51 - "The victim knew nothing when it hit. It was in retrospect she thought that it could have been an earthquake. She considered sitting down at the fountain, because it was so low, when she looked down and saw all the blood".

10.51 - "She tried to remain standing up, but was tired and wanted to sit down. Her purse was gone and she did not understand what had happened. She does not remember that there were others there, as has been shown in the pictures afterwards. She saw smoke".

10.52 - "The victim is unsure of where she should go. She remembers there was a man who came out from R4 that helped her".

10.52 - "Because she was in shock, she not so much. The man who came out helped her, holding her up, and together they went to Torggt where there was an ambulance. There were lots of people and photographers, the victim reacted to this".

10.53 - "The victim got into the ambulance, but can not remember how long it all took. It was the man who responded that people took pictures, she was most keen to get into the ambulance and get away".

10.53 - "But she noted that there were people around and took pictures. She says she has damage to the ear, and think it is disgusting to think about how close she was. She looked up after the explosion and saw it was broken windows. She finds it uncomfortable and does not want to see pictures from the location or photos of herself. She found it hard to look at pictures of themselves from that day".

10.54 - "She has thought many times afterwards that she should have gone the other way. The victim got many splinters in ones and therefore all the damage"

10.54 - "Insult Rede says it was as if she had a radio in my head after the explosion, there were a lot of sirens and sounds. The incident was indescribable, it was a tremendous pressure. She went from normal hearing to hearing so many high unfamiliar sounds".

10.55 - [Describes the injuries she received]

10.55 - "She was fastened a tourniquet when she came to the ambulance to stop the bleeding."

10.56 [Details omitted, late effects described] Prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh describes victim's delayed damage and mental stress as a result of the events of July 22.

10.57 Engh read a medical certificate from Oslo University.

10.58 Engh: - In addition to this statement is included a statement from Aker Hospital.

10.58 Declaration by Aker Hospital does include a description of what kind of training With has gotten.

10.59 Mette Yvonne Larsen wants to add Withs locations when the bomb went off.

10.59 Larsen refers to video surveillance court previously saw, and Holden confirms that one can see With the video.

10.59 With was at the fountain at the H-block.

11.01 The court takes lunch break.

11.02 Breivik holding up his hands for police officer who put handcuffs on him. He led out of the courtroom.

11.55 Defenders and prosecutors are back in courtroom 250 after the break.

11.56 Breivik wrote a long document in his cell about what he thinks of the first expert report.

11.59 Breivik is again brought into the courtroom.

12.01 Interrogation of the defendant will continue.

12.01 Anders Behring Breivik holds a large collection of documents in hands.

12.02 Arntzen: - Then the court is set. As we continue negotiations with the interrogation of the defendant. Well, then prosecutors word to complete the last block, here you go.

12.02 Prosecutor Svein Holden: - Thank you, Judge. Yes, Breivik. We'll talk a little about the two forensic psychiatric statements. But before we embark on it, so I thought to ask you how you have found and been here, sitting and listening to Thoresen, reading the explanations Vestli and With.

12.02 Defendant Anders Behring Breivik: - It's, it's tough to be here.

12.03 Holden: - In what way do you find it that tough?

12.03 Breivik: - It is impossible not to be moved, then. Of all descriptions. And, well, it's tough. But there is certainly a lot tougher for anyone other than me of course. But I also think it's cool.

12.03 Holden: - Get what you to reflect on the necessity of what you've done?

12.03 Breivik: - It's like I've said all along that, I've always said that it is cruel. Violence is always the last resort. And it is the most extreme action a man can do, to take another life.

12.04 - And it should, therefore, violence should only be used when all other options have been tried. And that's just cruel anyway. But it does not change the basis for action. And unfortunately, this is probably just the beginning in Europe. Of several violent actions by militant nationalists. It looks like that is the only way. What I had hoped for, of course, many others had hoped for that the Labour Party and those in power would have actually realized their mistake and asked the Norwegian people, apologized, and said okay, we made a mistake, we should not have drowned our country with immigrants. And deconstructed our own culture, and we have learned from our mistake and we regret it.

12.05 - But instead they continue in exactly the same direction as the basis for struggle and resistance is the even more true now than it was before 22 July. Sadly.

12.05 Holden: - In what way is the foundation even stronger now?

12.05 Breivik: - They are completely unwilling to change course, political course. And the Norwegians are not going to accept losing their land and their city and their own ethnic group. And the same happens in other European countries too. They are not going to accept it. And this is unfortunately just the beginning.

12.06 Holden: - What makes you so sure?

12.06 Breivik: - You see it if you're watching in the media. There has been an increase in resistance over the last ten years. And more and more people realize that they are about to lose everything, and more and more people realize that the meaning of life is not to eat sushi every day and have nice flat-screen TVs. There are completely different things that are important, and it is our culture, it is our ethnic group, and it is certainly more and more perceived as important when ...

12.07 Holden: - What about charity for people from other parts of the world who have it harder in life than what we have here?

12.07 Breivik: - There are many ways to help others. So, I do not know whether to be a bit careful and call Japan and South Korea inhuman nations, even if they feel they can help those in their own regions. That is not to say that we should use our land as our ancestors have lived in the 12,000 years as a dumping ground for mass immigration from the third world to show compassion. It is not the solution Japan and South Korea have chosen. They also want to help them in their areas, and the direction, ie the line, I support too.

12.08 Holden: - How well do you really have studied Japan's aid policy?

12.08 Breivik: - Well I think most people are familiar with it, they have been relatively flatly against mass immigration. And, but they provide assistance to other countries for it. And they try to, try to help them in their own regions.

12.08 Holden: - How is it you have familiarized yourself with the Japanese policy in this area?

12.08 Breivik: - I've read about it.

12.08 Holden: - Where have you read about it?

12.08 Breivik: - No, it's many sources.

12.08 Holden: - Mention one.

12.08 Breivik: - It is ... if you want to read about Japan, and you use the internet, you will find so many sources you want. There are thousands of sources, and I've read many of them.

12.09 Holden: - Yes, you can name one for me?

12.09 Breivik - Miscellaneous encyclopediae. Wikipedia is one source. And there are various information, information pages about other countries. I've even read Norwegian books as Norwegian historians and, with various areas of knowledge, has written about Japan.

12.09 Holden: - And what book do you think of?

12.09 Breivik: - It is a series of books that deal with essentially every country in the world, where each book focuses on one country. And, I can not remember what it's called, The World Today or something like that. There are certainly many series which are made, dealing with each country.

12.09 Holden: - Where have you read a lot about Japan?

12.09 Breivik: - Among other things there, and very many other places.

12.10 Holden: - Okay. It was a little on the side of what we really going to talk about now. We touched the forensic psychiatric statements at a fairly early stage of the case. And when I told you that you should be allowed to provide your comments on these statements at a later date. And now is the time come. And then I thought we could make it so that we first take the statement from Husby and Sørheim, we go a bit through it. And then we discuss declaration number two. First of all, I'm interested to hear a bit about how you experienced conversations with Husby and Sørheim. What was it like to sit and talk with them?

12.11 Breivik: - No, I found it good conversations, I got a great sense of both Synne Sørheim and Husby, I think they are, they worked as professional people. It was decent conversations. I wanted to be as open as possible and told basically exactly the same as I have told in the police interviews. And it is the unimaginable amount of information given that we know that the interrogations are more than 11,000 pages, at the time it was obviously not so much, but there is a lot of information we talked about. And I figured that since they were going to do one, a strict work and hoped that they were for, what to say, emotionally attached to your event.

12.11 Holden: - Did you feel any difference between being questioned by police and talking with Sørheim and Husby?

12.12 Breivik: - No, the police are both committed to finding the truth, while I checked on them, at least a few calls later with Husby and Sørheim that, I got the impression that they concluded very early and that they really were only looking for very specific information. That's the impression I got. But despite that, I thought that professional court psychiatrists are supposed to be objective, so I was not too worried about it then. I had confidence in them.

12.12 Holden: - And then it came out in late November, and then comes this statement with a conclusion that you are insane.

12.12 Breivik: - Mm.

12.12 Holden: - How did you react to that?

12.13 Breivik: - Yes, well, the police did not really want that I would know the conclusion, but when I was in the yard so it was another prisoner who yelled the conclusion at me, forcing police to really be open about it and talk about what really happened. And then I learned about the conclusion they had reached and the reasons for it, at least in the abstract. But it was well, well it came out in late November, but the problem was that I still could not access the report until around 15 December. And this is a report that is 240 pages, I mean, it took a while to work through it.

12.13 Holden: - I've realized that you have objections to the product as supplied.

12.13 Breivik: - Yes, that's right.

12.13 Holden: - Tell me about them.

12.13 Breivik: - Is it true that judges have received a copy of the op-ed I wrote with the addition?

12.14 Arntzen: - No, that's not true.

12.14 Holden: - But it is possible, we considered the space that perhaps it would be appropriate. What do the defenders think?

12.14 Bæra: - We also see that it may be appropriate and may present a report with copies available to the members.

12.14 Holden: - And go on, then.

12.14 Larsen: - Now aid lawyers have not read it then, so we do not know, but we get the gist of it, but it is a document which is not known to us.

12.14 Breivik: - It is part of the dossier.

12.14 Holden - It is in the dossier.

12.14 Larsen: - Yes, it must be delivered in late anyhow. We got new documents...

12.14 Arntzen: - But this is a document that will facilitate the review in the following.

12.14 Holden: - I think so, probably.

12.14 Arntzen: - Then I think it is appropriate that we get it handed out now.

12.15 Holden: - And then I'm sure there are some policemen sitting there and hear that they should now start up a bit. And, yes, you've copied it all, yes?

12.15 Bæra: - We have it finished.

12.15 Holden: - When there is certainly no problem. For the record I can advise the aid lawyers that this declaration, this chronicle, as Breivik has called it, is in doc. 03.10.10.

12.15 Breivik: - It may well be mentioned that it was distributed to three news media companies in Norway, but they, all three decided to censor it in very great extent.

12.15 Holden - You can tell when your defender parts out, so can you tell us about why you decided to write this chronicle as you have called it?

12.16 Breivik: - What I saw was that this conclusion would stir up very big debate. And I did not want to participate in the debate before, what to say, it, the debate was ripe for it. Therefore, I chose not to go out very early. At the same time I had to actually review the entire report, so I spent quite some time on it. So, what I immediately communicated to my lawyer was that I wanted him to convey that 80 percent of the contents of the alleged 13 calls were fictional. And then I come back to what I thought about it later. And ...

12.16 Holden - We can only take, cover some of that. This 80 per cent... You mean it's more or less verbatim, that it is actually 80 percent error, or there was a figure of speech to illustrate that there is much that is not right?

12.17 Breivik: - Yes, I'm almost back to it. How it was done. But I can tell a bit more about it, what I mean by that, now?

12.17 Holden: - Yes, like that.

12.17 Breivik: - Yes, well, first of all, as I mentioned earlier, I got a very clear impression that they had concluded prematurely. And worked really to support that conclusion, and if you read the report in full, so giving, so you also get that impression, that was certainly the impression I got. That they had started with a conclusion and then they have located the premises to support the conclusion.

12.17 Holden: - What was it that made you draw that conclusion, or get that impression?

12.18 Breivik: - You can see the witness descriptions. It is inconceivable many witness descriptions there, and the only thing they have emphasized the sequences are taken completely out of context to give a wrong impression. And this has happened not just once but many times. It gives a totally wrong impression, and it eases then, the way I see it, their continued efforts to support the conclusion. It's one of the reasons.

12.18 Holden: - But as I understood you, you had also gained the impression during conversations with them. That they were, indeed, biased, or that they drew a conclusion at an early date. Is that correct?

12.18 Breivik: - No, that while we talked, had conversations, so I trusted that they would do their job. Or so I had not continued the conversation. I trusted that they would convey what I said and what I said, it was exactly the same as I conveyed to the police.

12.19 - It was absolutely identical. But what I responded to in the beginning, was the that these calls were not filmed or taped in any way, and I said, why is not this loss? How can verify a, then? And then they said no, in Norway so lose not. And then I thought, well, then we'll try it. Without. There was one point. Let's see. There are very many constructed sentences where, therefore, that the claims that I have said to a very great extent I never said that. And this is not innocent misunderstandings, it is malicious fictions to underpin the conclusion that they have. They have, in other words, built to a very great extent the premises. But, well, I've read the report in full, and if I had read about the person who was described, so I had thought that he hears the home of a madhouse and should be medicated immediately. But it is not me who is described in the report. But I see that if there actually existed such a person, then the person would firstly not been ready to go and move without a walker. But he'd been the completely crazy. But the person who is described in the report, it is not me.

12.20 Holden: - Maybe we can take a small step to the side before we go into what is actually wrong. You said it was malicious fiction?

12.20 Breivik: - That is incorrect. When I speak about my intention. And I have no reason, so I ask you to look away from. It is not malicious, but it is certainly incorrect.

12.20 Holden: - What do you think, it was a question that Husby served up a few days ago too, but what do you think the reason is that they write things that you have said?

12.20 Breivik: - I think we can take it to the end. After I have gone through this.

12.21 Holden: - Ok, yes, we can certainly choose the procedure if you wish.

12.21 Breivik: - The problem is that there is so much information that I stretch the not to go through everything. I'm just going to take some variety. For now, the judges, the document that I created. It is an example of 103 and illustrates how thoroughly they have been set to work to ...

12.21 Holden - When you say 103, so you mean the report...

12.21 Breivik: Page 103 therein, yes.

12.21 Holden: - Yes.

12.21 Breivik: - That shows how thoroughly they have been set to work to pervert the information that I have provided. So I appear to be completely irrational, absurd and very unintelligent man.

12.21 Holden: (not audible), Breivik, maybe you can give, if you are in this feature article you have written, so you might give preference to the judges as well.

12.21 Breivik: - It's on page five, number one.

12.22 Holden: - Example one on page five.

12.22 - Okay, when we turned up on it, so then you may restart in terms of just the sample.

12.22 Breivik: - Mm. That's really just an example of the section, and it is from page 103 There they claimed that I have said, we shall see. This is a paragraph that they have designed. The experts ask the subject to explain their concepts. The subject explains: - It is from al-Qaeda, gangster environments where anarchomarxists that are oppositional, some of which serve the people. The experts understand more and not concepts. The subject explains: - anarcho is short for anarchism. It can be anarchomarxists, anarchojihadists' and anarchists' wife nationalization lists. The subject says: - He has made the words up himself because they lacked. And then you can start the sentence one, which is where the experts ask the subject to explain their concepts. The first sentence is contrived.

12.23 - And I remember well that I explained the terminology along the way, without needed to ask for further details. Then there's the sentence two. The subject explains, it is from al-Qaeda, gangster environments where anarchomarxists that are oppositional, some of which serve the people. Thus, this sentence gives the meaning not the first. Sounds like there's a whole completely irrational person who uttered it. And what I actually meant, what we talked about right there, there is the following terms are used in the manifest, manifest, and is from an essay in which I explain that militant nationalist networks often recruit from organizations, gangs, such as Boot Boys. Militant Islamists often recruit from gangster muslims, such as A-and B-gang. Militants Marxists recruit from organizations such as Flash or extreme Marxist organizations that Serve the People.

12.24 - In the manifest I have referred to these groups, respectively anarchist nationalization lists-Islamists and Marxists. The reason is the marker that they often sympathize with the corresponding militant groups, but they also are part anarchist, as they lack an overarching goal. And, therefore, this is an example of things that I never uttered, and which has been constructed in a way of the experts that I must appear irrational. And it goes back to those 13 meetings.

12.24 Holden: - Okay. If for example we can take the next sentence there too. Where I see that sentence three of the statement is that the experts understand more and not concepts.

12.24 Breivik: - Mm. What I suggest that I do is that I focus on some of the key elements ...

12.24 Holden: - Yeah, but I'd like a little follow-up for the court only if it is okay?

12.24 Breivik: - Ok, yes, of course.

12.25 Holden: - In the third sentence of the statement as it stands after here that the experts understand more and not concepts. And then you shot in, explanatory sentence three: - These are fictional as it is already explained to the experts. And then I wonder how with some degree of certainty, as I understand you, you say that this is fictional?

12.25 Breivik: - Well, I remember the conversation very largely because the conversations I had with the experts, were identical with those which I passed on to police. We've talked about exactly the same.

12.25 Holden: - But you, but you can exclude that one of them at some point during the conversation about this here says: - You, Breivik, I heard you explain this, but I do not. Can you rule it out?

12.25 Breivik: - Yes, I can rule out. For I remember it well. I do not remember all good, but I remember it well, and that is why I have commented on it. But to go a little further on ...

12.26 Holden: - House ..., it's a pretty, what should I say, formidable capacity to remember as well?

12.26 Breivik: - Yes, and the advantage of it, dear Holden, is that I've got access to interviews, that is, interviews with police. And I have conveyed exactly the same there. And I remember that I conveyed exactly the same to the experts.

12.26 Holden: - Exactly. But is it that you remember ..., it is one, one of your good qualities, so to speak? That you remember ...

12.26 Breivik: - No, I do not remember everything, but I remember something. The reason I wrote about this here, because I remembered it. But I can not say that I remember everything.

12.26 Holden: - No, okay, go ahead.

12.26 Breivik: - Here I have taken two sentences or two paragraphs, as I have explained thoroughly. And they continue until page seven.

12.26 Holden: - Where are we going now?

12.26 Breivik: - Continued to page eight.

12.26 Holden: - Starts on page seven?

12.26 Breivik: - There are two paragraphs that I have explained quite thoroughly. This here was one of the sections.

12.27 Holden: - If you just show us how ...

12.27 Breivik: - Yes, it is, now I come to page eight for now I skip the next section to save us some time.

12.27 Holden: - And then we are on page eight.

12.27 Breivik: - Mm. Right. Throughout the report so, then it is, then the experts specifically excluded pronouns like "I" prior sentences. This is the person who uttered it, and in that case then it's me, sounding very naive out. It is also, the way I see it, part of the strategy to build the premises. Many sentences seems I totally retarded out, and it is probably also their conclusion, that I am totally retarded. For example, on page 95-96: - Was a favorite of teachers, were among the top three in the class and walked quickly through the curriculum. Was grievous. And as to: - Have great success. Built network. I never express myself in a way like that, but they have alleged that I express myself in that way. And I think just a retarded person manifests itself in such a way.

12.28 Holden: - So it is, so it is therefore the omission of the pronoun that makes you have the notion?

12.28 Breivik: - Not only that, but this is one of the elements they have used very often. Often combined with other factors to produce a person crazy and very naive. Use of special words without further explanation, that a consistent strategy label of disease. And then they brought out special words in the compendium, thus manifest, as I have explained them thoroughly if I talked to them about it. And I've talked to them about some of the special words, but they present it without explanation so that it sounds very absurd. And on several occasions, they have alleged that I am very hard to follow.

12.29 Holden: - Are you there?

12.29 Breivik: - No, I'm ... So, when I talk to people, I take the position that they can not so much about politically motivated violence. So I explain a bit about it. But in their case, so they asked very little, so obviously it's something they have not understood. For example, when I talked about the Marxist organization Serve the people, so they began to talk about the Blitz serve the people. And then they take a sudden something that I have explained, that gives a very good sense, to something that sounds totally irrational out. So obviously they have not understood everything, but I do not, if they had asked me about the meanings of things, so of course I had explained to them.

12.29 - Selective use of references and quotes from witnesses. Now I'll go quickly through it.

12.30 Holden: - I just inject a few questions here and there, i.

12.30 Breivik: - There is quite a lot to go through, so it's good if you do not interrupt me so much.

12.30 Holden: - I'll try to limit myself a bit, but I have one question for exactly this: - Do you often find that people misunderstand you when you talk about politically motivated violence?

12.30 Breivik: - Ehhh, I think I'm pretty good at explaining. I tend not to use neologisms unless I think he understands that. And in those cases I think they do not understand it, so I use less complicated words.

12.30 Holden - Only move on you, I'll try to limit myself.

12.30 Breivik: - Yes, of course: - The subject appears emotionally blunted, with complete emotional distance to their own situation and to the experts.

12.31 - And then ... The answer to that is what I have explained to the judges, that in order to survive, I'm going to have it, it is a protection mechanism. I often use, what to say, a bit academic language to distance myself from it. It is one of the strategies using, in addition to desensitising strategy, as is known in the military, for example. And in addition, the meditation that displaces fear and other emotions. I will not go much into that.

12.31 Holden: - Of these three elements you now ...

12.31 Breivik: - All this I explained to the experts. I made them thoroughly aware of it. Anyway, they have not written anything about it, almost.

12.31 Holden: - Of these three items you were inside now, what would you say has been the single most important factor for training up to 22 July.

12.31 Breivik: - It is good to desensitise oneself.

12.32 Holden: - Are we talking about when bushido?

12.32 Breivik: - Among other things ... meditation. The bushido meditation, yes.

12.32 Holden: - To weigh bushido relation to other factors, how would you weigh bushido then?

12.32 Breivik: - The meditation that I do, as I do down in the cell below here every time we break, it is very efficient. It's probably the most effective strategy.

12.32 Holden: - The most effective strategy ...

12.32 Breivik: - Well, it works the different from some, but it works well for others. So there are some specific claims, such as the claim ... I can start with the most absurd first-I have gone with a face mask for years and suffering from germ phobia. It's just ridiculous assertion.

12.33 - I do not suffer from germ phobia and I have never been with a face mask. I have never used a face mask throughout my life. I have a particulate filter at home, which I have used a few times, including when I drilled out these detonator-casing. Then I used a dust filter. And then reacted to my mother about it, she wondered why I went with dust filter inside. And then I said something to her, I do not remember what. But it is certainly the reason I used it while I drilled out, when it came aluminum dust. You may then use a dust filter. The second time was ... ehh, it was just before I moved up to Vålstua. When I was on a field conference with the Oslo gun club. It was the only field gathering where I could train with the Glock in the field, ie free in nature. And I would be official at this convention. In addition, there were only a few days until I was up to Vålstua, and I thought that now I can not afford to get sick. I must do everything I can to not get sick now, for this here risks destroying the entire operation.

12.34 And then my mother came home one day, she had been infected with some friends. Then she said "I'm going to be sick." And it was about two weeks before I was to move up to Rena and a few days before going on field event. And then I said ... to myself at least, that I must do all I can now not to get sick, because this is a major threat to everything I've worked for. And then I thought like that: - it is possible to avoid getting sick when you live with a person who has been infected? And I did not have the expertise to answer that question, so I called my doctor. So I asked the ... is it realistic to avoid infection if you live with a person who has just been infected? And then they explained that if it is based virus infection, then it is very difficult. However, if there are bacteria based, then it is possible.

12.35 And so I asked - Yes, it is possible, if I, let's say, if I wear a face mask or dust filter. So they said, that yes, it increases the chances of course that you are not infected. And when I tried to use this particle filter five minutes, five to ten minutes one day in an attempt not to be infected. Because it was so critical date. And then I noticed the day after I was infected, I was getting sick themselves. And then I continued course not. And then I was sick for three weeks. And this they have been informed about, this one episode, I called the doctor. And ... they have talked to my mom, too. And they have written that I was suffering from germ phobia and gone with masks for many years. There are very many of those cases.

12.35 Holden: - For the sake of clarity. You said you had it in you in on two occasions. And the first time said that one or other of your mother. Do you remember what you said?

12.36 Breivik: - I know what I said, and it was that I was going to drill out the detonator-casings that I would use to blow up the government building. I never said that.

12.36 Holden: - Do you know you could have touched the topic of infection / disease on that occasion too?

12.36 Breivik: - I remember simply. But I could at least do not tell you what I really was doing. So it can happen that when she thought that when I suffered from germ phobia or that I had clicked in total. I'll go through a few points. It is alleged that for example, I'm afraid of radiation. And it is purely fictional claim, I never said that. Why on earth would you be afraid of radiation, unless you live in ti mil of Chernobyl?

12.36 Holden: - There are many who are afraid of it.

12.37 Breivik: - I doubt it. There has been some discussion about radiation from mobile, but I'm certainly no fear of radiation. And I never said that either, to them. It is fictional. Then there is another claim: - that I claim to have the right to decide who should live and die in Norway. And of course, I never said that. What I've said ... They asked: - What gives you the right to kill others? When I explained that, that ... militant nationalists in Europe believe that we have a legitimate fight, just in the same way as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara, when they were trying to coup power in Cuba. And ... it is a mandate we give ourselves because we choose to fight. And we are well aware that ... I am also aware that people would die. So, therefore, I do not see myself as a judge of who shall live and die in Norway.

12.38 Holden: - I must interject a question there, Breivik. When you set up lists of A and B traitors as you call it. And saying that these people should be killed. So you might give the impression that you kind of decide whether these people should live or die. What do you think about that?

12.38 Breivik: - Of course, if one looks great on it so it could of course look like this, but this is very few people in Norway that I believe are legitime targets, there are very few people and there are political activists who support multiculturalism and working for multiculturalism. So what will the say in Norway so I consider the 95 per cent, more than that, 98 percent of the people who, perhaps 99 percent civilians, innocent. The small elite of political activists working for multiculturalism, they think I'm legitimate targets. Therefore, it is wrong to use those words.

12.39 Holden: - Yes, but it is not you who appoints one percent or whatever it may be as legitimate targets.

12.39 Breivik: - Among other things, I am, yes.

12.39 Holden: - Is it include? Is it from that, it's you or?

12.39 Breivik: - In this case, it's me, yes.

12.39 Holden: - And what's wrong with the sentence to Husby / Sørheim then?

12.39 Breivik: - Can not, can not be allowed to tell some points, and you can save the question for later, if that's okay.

12.39 (Holden and Breivik talking at once)

12.40 Holden: - Yes, yes.

12.40 Breivik: - For it is only a few points.

12.40 Holden: - I can not, I can not promise you that I did not take any questions. I find it a bit clearer that we take in relation to each theme. Men.

12.40 Breivik: - Of course.

12.40 Holden: - But if we just take and end with the question I asked in a few minutes, if you see your formulation to Sørheim / Husby in light of what we talked about now, is it really so very good?

12.40 Breivik: - The way it is made of seems completely absurd. If one says that he is one, a right, politically right-wing extremist who wants to execute political activists, there is a correct way to describe it. If you use the words so it sounds totally absurd. And then there's the comment in other words, to single-handedly save Europe. Firstly, I have never used the word salvation.

12.41 Holden: - Which side are you on?

12.41 Breivik: - It is on page 10 And it is from page 57 of the psychiatric report. As they mentioned, oh, they think I single-handedly wants to save Europe. And firstly I have never used the word salvation. What I remember very well was that Husby told that he had two patients who claimed that they were Jesus. And I got the impression that he thought I would be the third of those. That was the impression I got. And then he mentions you, I fall into that category then, I think I'm Jesus or something similar. But I have never used the word salvation, and I have never said that this is my fight, I have said time and again that I'm a foot soldier, and it is verified in the compendium.

12.42 - And I'm just like many others. Nothing more and nothing less. But I must even take criticism that I could have used a bit pompous representation to the police and to Husby and Sørheim the beginning. And I have probably made it pretty easy for them to take things out of context and put it together in a way that makes me sound irrational. So I must take absolute self-criticism on it. But all I told the police what I stand for. There are no inconsistencies. But for a person who has chosen to make such mistakes, it's much ammunition that can be used.

12.43 Holden - You started by saying when you put yourself in the place that you have been open.

12.43 Breivik: - Yes.

12.43 Holden: - In regard to the two experts. And now I get the impression that you also said that you have said inaccuracies. Can you solve it?

12.43 Breivik: - I have not said anything wrong, but I've probably spent a pompous language. And that I should not have done. So what was the thinking behind it was that I thought if I manage to convey this in a very logical way, so I see no chance that they can find me insane. And it was a obviously a huge miscalculation on my part. It was.

12.44 - So it's the one insinuation that I kind I have in a sense, become, been, thus inherited insanity from my grandmother or grandmother and then it says in the compendium. And my grandmother, (name has taken away the grandmother), and then we are on page 13 of the chronicle. And I'm a little unsure of where it is in the report, it is possibly page 79, but I'm not quite sure where they promote this insinuation. And to talk about my grandmother, she contracted polio when she was pregnant with my mother, and she ended up in a wheelchair and five years later as her husband died, that is my grandfather.

12.45 - And as a result of it, so she got problems. She, therefore, it is well someone ends up in a wheelchair, they become bitter and maybe a little tyrannical towards their surroundings. But as far as I know it was never a psychiatric diagnosis, it was only as a result of this situation she ended up in. That she got polio and ended up in a wheelchair and lost her husband. And this has been communicated in a way that, it will give the impression that this is hereditary insanity that I obviously have picked up.And the votes course not. So there is no one in my family who have had mental illness. It is inconceivable much information, I do not know how much I actually use it.

12.46 - For now, the judges even read the op-ed. And I know that my defense has some follow-up questions. But 80 percent of the content of the alleged conversations are fictional. And this is certainly some of the examples of it. But the other hand, I want to address is, what to say, that the forensic psychiatric sector in Norway, court psychiatry, I do not know how seriously to take it. You know the what happened after World War II, and it was not just Hamsun and Justice Riisnæs that ended up in a mental hospital, there were also 13 others. And many ministers in the national collection was sent to a mental hospital because they were anti-communists. And because they had no reason to put them in jail in the beginning. And this is something that Norwegian forensic psychiatry has never taken issue with. They have never taken issue with what happened after World War II, they put people in mental hospitals because they were, for political reasons.

12.47 Holden: - How many ministers was what it was talking about, did you?

12.47 Breivik: - There are approximately 15 people. I do not know exactly which ministers, but I know that most of the ministers.

12.47 Holden: - Where do you have that information from?

12.47 Breivik: - I have, that I do not want to tell. But I have ...

12.47 Holden: - What is, what could be dangerous about it?

12.47 Breivik: - Well, Hamsun knows everybody. Riisnæs knows many also. Justice Riisnæs. And in the past, what I've been told from a source that I trust, is that there were 13 others, mostly ministers and also some from Rinnan group that was sent to a mental hospital.

12.47 Holden: - This source, who was it, then?

12.47 Breivik: - I do not want to comment on that right now.

12.47 Holden: - Is there a historical competent person?

12.47 Breivik: - It is. And ...

12.48 Holden - When did you get the information, then?

12.48 Breivik: - I have tried to access the forensic psychiatric reports from the national collection was sent to a mental hospital. However, for various reasons unknown, so the Norwegian government made it difficult to publish. But I will challenge the press to find out how many people were actually sent to a mental hospital after the Second World War.

12.48 Holden: - I think probably the press has already taken up the gauntlet, Breivik.

12.48 Breivik: - I think absolutely not. But then I move on to the second point ...

12.48 Holden: - I think we should be a bit on exactly this, for if we stick to the press, then. Then I read some articles recently, where there are historians who have gone pretty hard against the vision you now advocate.

12.49 Holden: - That there were so many ministers who were sent to a mental hospital.

12.49 Breivik: - How many ministers was it? Do they?

12.49 Holden: - No, it was certainly nowhere near the number you're on now...

12.49 Breivik: - But since you think you have read it, how many then?

12.49 Holden: - Now it is I who ask you questions. And the question I could think of ...

12.49 Breivik: - You claim the that what I say is wrong. I think that there are 15 people. And you think that there are 15, then you have to say how many you think it is.

12.49 Holden: - I should not say anything at all, to start there, Breivik. But what I want to say is ask you where, who is your source?

12.50 Breivik: - I do not want to comment on it. But I'll try for this trial to find out exactly who was sent for, who the 15 people are. I know of three people, two ministers and in addition to Hamsun. But I know there are more. There are 15 people.

12.50 Holden: - What do you think ...

12.50 Breivik: - The reason for that, they were sent there for ideological reasons. And this is something that Norwegian forensic psychiatry has never taken issue with. And when I come to something that happened in the 80's that I would like to comment on ...

12.50 Holden: - I'll just end with a question.

12.50 Holden: - For exactly this. What do you think is the reason that you have this information, while many others do not?

12.51 Breivik: - It's in nobody's interest to not really convey what happened after World War II. There were many undemocratic decisions that are contrary to human rights. As was made. And this is, some of the dirty secrets of Norway in connection with the war, as many do not want to appear. That is why these psychiatric reports still after 65 years have not been released. And so, in principle, all documents released after 60 years, but these psychiatric reports, they are still not released. And it could be a challenge to you. Since you think that what I say is not true.

12.51 Holden: - So this is the exclusive source of your who have had access to this?

12.52 Breivik: - I guess no one has access to all the fifteen reports. Because they are restricted. But I have been told that, or I've become aware that the 15 people and not just Hamsun. It was ...

12.52 Holden: - What is it about this source that makes you trust enough in person?

12.52 Breivik: - No, I have had limited time, but I want to find accurate, try to dig more for trial. I have not had the time until now.

12.52 Holden: - No, but we can move on to the next topic.

12.52 Prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: - Since you mention Hamsun. If I say to you that Hamsun was not declared insane. What do you do?

12.52 Breivik: - Heh, that's right. But the term they used at the time was that he was found, he had impaired mental abilities.

12.53 Engh: - Yes, and it is not the same as insane.

12.53 Breivik: - It is irrational. And he was put in this hospital for six months. But the others, they, many of those had to be there for several years. He was one of those who were lucky.

12.53 Engh: - Lucky, in what sense, then, that he was ...?

12.53 Breivik: - That he was released after six months, as opposed to the others.

12.53 Engh: - But were you aware that he was considered sane?

12.53 Breivik: - He had, he was branded with that he had impaired mental abilities.

12.53 Engh: - Yes.

12.53 Breivik: - And that's insane.

12.53 Engh: - No, it is not. But that's okay ...

12.53 Breivik: - From the sources that I have, so it is.

12.53 Engh: - Yes, all right, but I understand.

12.54 Breivik: - I have read his own book, have you read his book? Yes, but to get to the second point. It was a forensic psychiatrist, renowned forensic psychiatrist in the 80s in Norway called Reppesgård. He was a Marxist-Leninist. And was used frequently by the press, and he and several others in the court psychiatry in Norway supported the use of mental hospitals against political dissidents. And they supported the Soviet Union's use of this. And Reppesgård ran on until the 90s, he held on until the 90s. He did not get fired. One would think that the great doyen in court psychiatry, Kringlen, would demand his resignation after this was known. But instead, as he defended Kringlen.

12.55 - And it says a lot about the Norwegian forensic psychiatry when people Reppesgård and people who support the use of mental hospitals against political dissidents do not get fired, but will continue to operate on. So I think that,

12.55 Holden: - Do you fear being a number in the range of political dissidents being put into the madhouse that you have (unclear, Breivik talks atop Holden)?

12.56 Breivik: - No, I do not think so. But I'm talking really about Norwegian forensic psychiatry, it should be in their interest to come to terms with themselves, and start with what happened after World War II and continue with the discussion of these Marxist-Leninist just psychiatrists. And at least try to make a record and ensure that there is currently no law psychiatrists in Norway supporting the use of mental hospitals for political dissidents. It's crucial that people do not get it working as court psychiatrists. But then the question that Husby asked me earlier, he wondered why I had claimed that they had lied, and that's a good question that I really wish that the two even to answer, but what I think has happened is that This forensic psychiatric evaluation occurred close of the event so that they were deeply emotionally shaken, and, what I think happened, it was concluded that early that a normal person has not made it here. The person who has done this, he must be crazy.

12.57 - They could not fathom that a normal person could have done this. And it tells us two things, this is what I think, by the way, I have nothing, but it explains two things. One is that they lack expertise in assessing political motivated violent, such as the IRA, al-Qaeda, ETA, they lack the expertise to assess such individuals. And I asked them myself, it was one of the first questions my. Have you ever considered a politically motivated violent? And they did not. So I think, I just think that they were, they were emotionally attached. This coupled with the fact that they lacked expertise in assessing political motivated violence men. The two factors contributed to the actually concluded very early and spent all the time to actually support a conclusion. That's what I think.

12.58 Holden - Have you looked for you other hypotheses?

12.58 Breivik: - No, it is relevant to talk about what I think. And this is what I think.

12.58 Holden: - But you have mentioned other hypotheses in this chronicle?

12.58 Breivik: - I have it, and there are five possibilities, possible explanations, but this is what I think, and that's why I'm going to, there's no point in taking up the other four options because it are not the opportunities I think happened.

12.58 Holden: - Do not ignore that I find it a bit interesting to record it. So I, you might start bit that tells you a little about why you wrote these five different scenes?

12.58 Arntzen: - Yes, we can get the page reference?

12.58 Holden: - On pages 1 and 2

12.58 Breivik: - The other possibility, if you want me to comment on it, it is that ideological incompatibility.

12.58 Holden: - What do you, what do you mean?

12.59 Breivik: - No, that's really something that, something that is not completely unknown in other countries, such as the Soviet Union was known for putting political dissidents in mental hospitals. And it was not so many years ago that Russia put inside Datzik in a mental hospital because he is a national socialist, or he is nationalist. And this is not an unknown phenomenon in Russia. There are many other regimes also do the same.

12.59 Holden: - But when you say that it was incompatible. Does it mean that you have a political point of view, and they have another?

12.59 Breivik: - The theory goes that the that considering two completely different worlds of thought. For example, I wrote in my compendium that Nelson Mandela is a Marxist terrorist, and he was really a terrorist leader, before he was imprisoned for 20 years. That was why he was imprisoned because he was the leader of an organization, the ANC's armed wing, who bombed and murdered citizens.

13.00 - And his ... organization he led, is responsible for many fatalities. And for example, so staying the fact Sørheim in South Africa. And when she looks at the Nelson Mandela as a great hero, like, what to say, it is common sight on him.

13.00 Holden: - Told that she is to you, or what?

13.00 Breivik: - She ... I interpreted it that way, anyway.

13.00 Holden: - How ... What was it about her that gave you the ability to interpret her there?

13.00 Breivik: - One can say that the most serious. And there are very few who believe the opposite.

13.00 Holden: - Yes, but when you rely on a general inference and not on an interpretation of her. Is it to be understood?

13.00 Breivik: - It was an interpretation.

13.00 Holden: - Yes, what was it about Sørheim that caused you to believe that she sympathized with Nelson Mandela?

13.00 Breivik: - Well, I interpreted the ... we talked through 13 calls, and I learned a lot about them, and there is information that I think she stands for. That's what I got from the conversation.

13.01 Holden: - Was his name mentioned in conversations between you?

13.01 Breivik: - Ehh ... I can get back what we originally talked about. Which is incompatibility. I suppose I should not tell much about what I think.

13.01 Holden: - Yes, I think probably we have to go through it and, you know.

13.01 Breivik: - Why should I tell you about what I think? I think that was the reason, that I mentioned earlier.

13.01 Holden: - Yes, but what's the reason why you wrote it? If you do not believe in it?

13.01 Breivik: - There are five possible solutions to why they have lied. Why I have identified more than 200 lies.

13.01 Holden: - But what is the reason you only want to present two hypotheses and that we should not go into the last three?

13.01 Breivik: - No, I do not consider it appropriate to convey something I did not even think of.

13.01 Holden: - But if you think about it, what is the reason why you wrote it?

13.02 Breivik: - This is to list the five possible answers, the five possible solutions.

13.02 Holden: - Do you fear that people will get incorrect perceptions of you if we go into the last three?

13.02 Breivik: - If they think I mean it, then they might get it. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that I mentioned in place, that's what I believe.

13.02 Holden: - Do you write often things you do not mean?

13.02 Breivik: - No, I am writing opportunities, ie solutions. If there are five solutions which, ie .. For example this with what voice and what you advocate, then there are some who believe that this is delusional while others think that it's right, but others believe it is a lie. There are three possibilities. And this is well the three possibilities you have not been so good at promoting themselves. You have not really mentioned the three options at all. And then it is not necessary for me .. at least, mentions five options for a solution.

13.03 Holden: - No, but then I do not really take and take a closer look at it, what I imagine to read up. In paragraph one on page one then touch this with emotional instability and incompetence in the field of politically motivated violence. We have talked a lot about already. And then in paragraph two on page two, then you have raised fears of recruitment and ideological incompatibility. That's also a topic you have touched?

13.03 Breivik: - It goes on to shield society for what they believe is harmful ideology.

13.03 Holden: - Then there is a third point here: economic dependence. Can you tell us about ...?

13.03 Breivik: - It is that they rely on government contracts, so they are not objective. If one is totally private practice and never receive government contracts, then one lens. If you are financially dependent, then you are not objective in any way.

13.04 Holden: - But you, you think, this is not something you ...?

13.04 Breivik: - No, this is not something I believe in, this is only possible solutions. There are five possible solutions, and what I believe in, that's what I explained earlier.

13.04 Holden: - How about number four, then, which is highlighting the revenge motive?

13.04 Breivik: - There is of course nothing. For example, if one considers medication fundamentalist Kvakkestad, so he gives the impression that he wants ... to pump me full of chemicals, because I deserve it. And earlier also Yvonne Larsen insisted that I should medicated, I can not, or should not go, unmedicated. There is of course an understandable ... maybe a little revenge motive behind it. They want me to suffer, and I have great understanding, but it is a possibility, but it's not something I believe.

13.04 Holden: - Would you suffer if you did drugs?

13.05 Breivik: - Yes, I had it.

13.05 Holden: - In what way?

13.05 Breivik: - I have received hundreds of letters. And some of the ... I have received a letter, for example, from one who believes he is right-wing, which is a Swedish lunatic asylum, or mental institution. And he has explained the effect of the chemicals he was exposed to. And it's terrible stuff, it's almost like ... He describes it as chemical lobotomy, and he describes it as absolutely horrid. He can not act, he is half-drugged all the time and sits and drools while he is at table. So it is not a fate that ... it's pretty bad.

13.05 Holden: - Is it in the situation you fear that you might end up?

13.05 Breivik: - I think probably everyone had feared it, really.

13.05 Holden: - So there is a fifth point that you're on here. A commission from the government.

13.06 Breivik: - Yes, that is the what I talked about earlier. It's pretty well known that it happened after World War II was in collaboration with the Labour Party. They wanted, in other words ... you can say that the National Assembly had the set many Labour people Allegrini prison, the prison I sit now. And they wanted to take revenge simply, the most likely gave directives that any of them to be sent to a mental hospital. But this is not a theory that I believe. I think ..

13.06 Holden: - You write on here, if I'm just going to read a sentence, "Husby and Sørheim were contacted at one time or another, by a representative of the government, and they were explained that it was necessary to protect society from my ideology".

13.06 Breivik: - Yes, this is not something I believe in at all. This is one of five possible solutions. And therefore it does not point to describe something that I clearly said I do not believe.

13.07 Holden: - For many people might say that this sounds pretty ... what shall I say ... folk, a little crazy.

13.07 Breivik: - Absolutely, and I agree completely in. And that's why I do not believe in it.

13.07 Holden: - What is the reason why you write it?

13.07 Breivik: - No, I have listed five possible solutions. And I have said on several occasions that I think the first solution, the evaluation was too close to the event. That they have probably been a little emotionally attached. And I do not think any of the others. But I have listed ... because it is part of the Norwegian history, and it is something that ... it happened in Norway on several occasions previously. So it was worth mentioning.

13.08 Holden: - Is your perception of these five points affected by the psychiatrists sitting in the room here?

13.08 Breivik: - Not necessarily. Maybe.

13.08 - No, it is in the diagnosis of these two that they think that I have paranoid delusions. And then to the extra care. But I have no trouble explaining this here and explain that, when lists five different solutions, one can not believe in all at once. You have to choose one. And the reason I took the first at number one, it's because it's the one I believe. And the reason I took it at number five, is because it is the least likely. This is something I believe.

13.08 Holden: - But if you agree that this sounds a little crazy, that one of the government to call Husby or Sørheim ...

13.09 Breivik: - It is not necessarily crazy if you know that there have been psychiatrists Reppesgård, who, still practicing as forensic psychiatrist. And he was not the only one, that's the worst.

13.09 Holden: - Okay, we can rephrase it then. But as I understand you, then you know that it can be challenging for many to believe that a government contacts from two court-appointed experts.

13.09 Breivik: - Yes, it's not something I believe in myself. But it is worth mentioning that still today, that there may be entitled psychiatrists who support the use of mental hospitals against political dissidents.

13.09 Holden: - Why do it at all, then? Would not it be better to just drop it?

13.10 Breivik: - No, really, not because it is a viable, realistic option either. But that's because it's actually part of Norwegian history and Norwegian forensic psychiatry has not taken a settlement with themselves. And it is really to support it. That they should deal with themselves. They should have a clear, they should establish a clear line, where, if they identify a court psychiatrist who believes this, he is deprived of the opportunity to practice.

13.10 Holden: - Did you rate this as a heavier argument when you wrote it than you do today?

13.10 Breivik: - No, not at all. I mentioned it as number one because that's what I believe. The others I do not think is the case. But I mentioned it to substantiate the claim that the court psychiatry in Norway should confront themselves. And they should go thoroughly through the 15 cases after World War II and what happened to Reppesgård. They should clarify why they intervened.

13.11 Holden: - Then Engh a question, and then it might be appropriate to take a break eventually?

13.11 Arntzen: - Yes, you have a lot left of the sequence theirs? It was foreshadowed review of report number two also.

13.11 Holden: - We should probably report of the two and we have some final questions about the relationship between reporting one and two.

13.11 Arntzen: - Ok, so how long you estimate that you have left?

13.11 Holden - It's hard to say, but ...

13.11 Arntzen: - If we wait a little break, for example, for up to 20 minutes. Are you almost done?

13.12 Holden: - I do not think we will finish in 20 minutes, I think not.

13.12 Arntzen: - Ok, then ask a final question, then we'll have a break.

13.12 Engh: - Only one question in relation to it, Breivik. This op-ed right now, and that you have taken in. The have recently written, I understand, and you had sent it to various newspaper, right?

13.12 Breivik: - I sent it to three companies, yes.

13.12 Engh: - Yes, and as you said in the place that you were a little unhappy that they had censored or censored at least part of it.

13.12 Breivik: - So far as I am aware, it has happened.

13.12 Engh: - Right, and ...

13.13 Breivik: - It is something that has come out, but ..., the very, very much has been ...

13.13 Engh: - But when it wrote this here and sent it to the newspaper, so I understand, when you wanted them to touch this. Is this correct?

13.13 Breivik: - Not necessarily pressing it, but in any case make it available in one way or another.

13.13 Engh: - Yes. But when we talk about these different options, these five different options when standing in this document. What did you think, how, did you have any thoughts about what people would think about you when they read these five options?

13.13 Breivik: - When viewed in the same setting as what I initially explained.

13.14 Engh: - Yes, but it will not, because they want the just read this here you have sent. How do you think, if I had been sitting in VG and got this, and then I read the five options. Did you have any thoughts on how they would look on you?

13.14 Breivik: - I think probably many are aware that around the world so used mental hospitals against political dissidents. In Russia and many countries.

13.14 Engh: - Yes, but Breivik ...

13.14 Breivik: - And Norway has done it several times before. And they have not taken issue with it.

13.14 Engh: - But this one, but this last here, where you ...

13.14 Breivik: - I was hoping that there would be a discussion about that, but it's also important to emphasize that I have not supported this view. And it says right here in black and white that I do not.

13.15 Engh: - No. And then it's not so long ago when you wrote it, and then wrote it and handed it out, and then you sit here and explain to you now. Has something happened in the period that has influenced you in relation to your position on these five options? Have you had any conversations with anyone about ...

13.15 Breivik: - Not really. In other words, it's the five possible options. And I have written what I think happened.

13.15 Engh: - Okay. Thank you.

13.15 Arntzen: - During the break, so I urge you to speak with, whether defense, for they had and some questions on this topic, from what I understand. And also aid lawyers, so that the remainder of up to four o'clock, are disposed thereafter. When we take pause until half past.

13.33 Arntzen: - As negotiations continue. And then I assume that you have, the players have talked about time.

13.33 Holden: - We have, and we have a schedule that allows us to be ...

13.33 Arntzen: - That's fine, and then watch yourselves that it complied with the driving schedule.

13.33 Holden: - Yes, I does not reveal the times in case I shoot over my ...

13.33 Arntzen: - Yes, as I assume some of the others will intervene. For it automatically goes out of their time. And then you also consider how necessary it is to drill further points which in itself has been passed.

13.33 Holden: - Breivik, before we move on to the next statement. Is there anything you want to add to the first statement?

13.34 Breivik: - Yes, I would like to spent the rest of the day to tell the rest, but it's not appropriate for judges since they already have the document. They get a little insight into, well, at least how I look at it. But, yes.

13.34 Holden: - Then we can move on to the second statement. How did you experience the other judicial observation?

13.34 Breivik: - I have not had very much time to go through it. To be honest, but I have ...

13.34 Holden: - No, if you take the first observation, conversations with Tørrissen and Aspaas.

13.34 Breivik: - The observation that Husby and Sørheim, they went well. There were no problems, it was not a problem. Yes, it went okay.

13.34 Holden: - And then we have also realized that you over a period had much contact with a team from Dikemark.

13.35 Breivik: - Yeah, right. But anyway, the assumptions that I would talk to the two new was the that the new calls were recorded on tape, so that all statements which I should have done, could be verified. It was one of the claims. Plus they also put a little more into the ideology that I represent. But it is true that the court ordered enforcement of observation, and then I had the not so much choice. But it went fine.

13.35 Holden: - Yes, how it was proceeding in daily?

13.35 Breivik: - When started the day at 8 o'clock every day, and then they locked in a room with four commonly psychiatric nurses who assessed you. And took the time to initiate dialogue and they wanted to know as much as possible. To make the best possible evaluation. So then I decided that I should talk to them as much as they want, and collaborate. And it was a very interesting period. And it was a nice time too, because I've lived in a solitary confinement cell for seven months and it is the pretty lonely in a solitary confinement cell. And considering that I am social person, I think it was pretty nice.

13.36 Holden - You used the word interesting.

13.36 Breivik: - Yes. I learned a lot about psychiatry. And I asked a lot about how the system worked in Norway, and how, yes, I am very curious about how psychiatry is in Norway. So I asked a lot about it.

13.36 Holden: - Did you get much response?

13.37 Breivik: - Made it.

13.37 Holden: - What about the report that the two have made.

13.37 - What do you think about it?

13.37 Breivik: - No, like the other so it was of course, that was a thorough report. And I disagree with the conclusion of it, but if you see it in the setting they work in, so it was expected really.

13.37 Holden: - What do you think of the setting as they were in?

13.37 Breivik: - No, I think that, there was the expected they would make a report and, it had been the unthinkable that they said something positive about me in the report. For it had been the career of their course. But based on the setting they were, so I figured it was as it was. I suspected that they would come by the two, what to say, the diagnoses.

13.38 Holden: - What was the reason you suspected it?

13.38 Breivik: - No, it's because no matter in what country, a person that knows a government building would fall into category antisocial, which is the American word or English word. And dissocial in Norwegian.

13.39 - It is impossible to escape the diagnosis if one is a politically motivated violent. Because you have declared war against the establishment. So it will not be enough away not matter. But as I have explained them, is that I have always seen myself as a narcissist, but not as a pathological narcissist. Thus, there is something called the businessman-narcissist. And I think probably all really in Norway, which has a successful career, which focuses very largely on the job, and I think many are narcissists in Norway.

13.39 - And I would actually argue that it is a good trait in many ways. As long as it is within normal limits. But there is something called morbid narcissism, and they think that I have it, and I think that's not true. I think that the narcissism that I and many Norwegians, it is within normal limits. Also, I have great confidence, but then, I totally disagree there.

13.40 Holden: - You say business narcissism versus pathological narcissism. Where ...

13.40 Breivik: - Well businessman-narcissism, it is really nickname. There is no official name.

13.40 Holden: - No, where are you have come across the term?

13.40 Breivik: - I think well it was something we discussed. We discussed narcissism, it was well someone who took up the word. Yes. And as for the so-called one dissocial diagnosis, so they've assumed that I'm anti-social because I tagged when I was little. And because I chose to do what I did. And in addition, they have given some other reasons, but they have not mentioned is the when a person who very much has the opportunity to cooperation with others who have run a company with seven employees. And there are so many examples I can come up with, that will really prove otherwise, but as I understand the it, if you have declared the existing war, so will the matter be referred to as antisocial. So what I understand. But I do not agree with any of the diagnoses.

13.41 Holden: - What do you think about getting a tag as narcissistic and dissocial?

13.41 Breivik: - Well, I think probably not politically motivated violence men coming from an antisocial diagnosis, it was just, it was expected. However,

13.42 Holden: - To be labeled as a narcissist. What are your thoughts about it?

13.42 Breivik: - It's like I said in place, ie, it is the most successful people in Norway are narcissists. Eh, it is within the normal range. And then there is what is called pathological narcissism as they think I am. And it's true whatsoever. Thus a person who is willing to sacrifice his own life for a cause, and for others, do not set themselves the highest. It is quite apparent. It, thus the 22/7, a so-called suicide operation and.

13.42 Holden: - If,

13.43 Breivik: ... a narcissist loves himself supremely and prioritizes himself first and foremost, he would never have sacrificed himself for anything.

13.43 Holden: - If it is so clear. What do you think the reason is that the two do not have intercepted it?

13.43 Breivik: - It makes you ask them.

13.43 Holden - Have you any thoughts on that?

13.43 Breivik: - Yes, I've discussed it with them. And they disagree with me. They think that I did what I did to, what to say, get PR for my own person, but there is one, it is a sick statement. I did not even have to survive the day.

13.43 Holden: - I will take hold in a third moment of declaration number two.

13.44 Breivik: - Mm. Something that I can also say, it is that which I have already said on Utøya, if I survive this here so come every day to be a nightmare for life. There I was completely unaware of. And it's not a setting that I think anyone in the world envies me as I am now. Although there is a lot of PR around my person so I can surely count on one hand all the positive things written about me, it's just negative all along. It's not something a person wants to be in that setting. So,

13.44 Holden: - Have all the days after 22 July has been just as difficult?

13.44 Breivik: - It is a burden, but I think probably something like, what to say, give a true picture of what awaits you if you do something like that, it's well he Merah in Toulouse, he thought If he survives this operation as it is much suffering that awaits. He chose not survive. And the same goes for the two of NSU, Germany, Uwe Böhnhardt and Mundlos, they thought that if we are being taken for this here so come every day to be a nightmare, and they, they chose not to, did not survive. That is,

13.45 Holden: - Are your days nightmarish?

13.45 Breivik: - No, that is, one can not say that every day is a nightmare, but it's a great stress and, and (Holden interrupts, unclear what he says) to bear the responsibilities one has done.

13.45 Breivik: - It is a big responsibility, and I did not expect to get anything, no mercy. Because I showed the no mercy. But I knew it would be tough, and it has been. And man, there have nothing to do with narcissism, rather the opposite.

13.46 Holden: - I shall, as I mentioned, highlight a third aspect of privacy second Now we have talked about the two diagnoses you have been given, and we shall return to a fact-based, or an assessment is it accurate to say, the two experts. And then we're in the statement on page 295, if I remember correctly, just double check it. And then ...

13.46 Arntzen: - What file is it, Holden?

13.46 Holden: - It's the sixth folder.

13.46 Arntzen: - Six, yes.

13.46 Holden: - And the statement number two, page 295 I'll read a review that the experts write about the Knights Templar. And in the aftermath of it I'll ask you a question. And then I will take hold of the last sentence in the penultimate paragraph. And it sounds like: - How the experts see it, he has known all along that the whole idea of Knights Templar have sprung from his own imagination.

13.47 - Is Knights Templar only in your imagination, Breivik?

13.47 Breivik: - No, it does not. It is a real network, and the six people that I have described, they exist.

13.47 Holden: - What do you think that the experts write what they do? That it has emerged out of imagination?

13.47 Breivik: - No, well, that is, they relate well to the investigation. And the police have made a conclusion based on that since you have not arrested anyone else, or localized others, so you have concluded that there can not exist. And if you use that logic, then, existed nor did I before 22 July.

13.48 - But we see also that the police have not even followed up the lead that they have because they believe that there are others. Therefore, they have chosen not to examine some of Serbia, no one in Liberia. And neither followed up Facebook on my network, and the 8,000 e-mail addresses. So I respect that it is something that you have to stand for, and I guess I did not wanted to be a police spokesman when the next attack happens in Norway.

13.48 - For what is going to happen. Because the two that I have described they are not arrested, they are out there. And that is something that you then have to explain when it happens. But I do understand that the two experts relate to the police and their investigation. I have no trouble understanding.

13.49 Holden: - Do you think they may have related to what you have told them?

13.49 Breivik: - It may well be that they have heard what I have said, and that they have relied on because of it. But I fully understand that the police have a mandate, and that is to preserve the tranquility of the population, and police said later, what you say is not necessarily what you know. So I fully understand it, the primary mandate of their or their intention is to stay calm. If you had said yes, no, we think there are two others, but we do not know who they are. It had not served their function. I fully understand that you have your vision.

13.50 Holden: - In front of the point with what I read up, then it says that he will have ruled invented a future vision, you should not be understood as a form of psychosis. Now it's possible that I make mistakes here, but at least the way I read it, so get rather the experts correct me at a later date at the question for you. Is that, here is what you will of his own, deliberately concocted a future vision, that there is something called the Knights Templar.

13.50 Breivik: - That's what they think, yes. Right.

13.50 Holden: - But it can not be correct?

13.50 Breivik: - That's right.

13.50 Engh: - Why do you think they write this?

13.50 Breivik: - I think they write it because they believe in it.

13.51 Holden: - Correct. Then think I'll leave the statement number two. Is there anything further you would like to comment on?

13.51 Breivik: - It's one more thing. Thus, the goal, when the goal is medicalisation, so you manage to get the two diagnoses and call it heavy psychiatry. But it is the just a game anyway. And, yes. I do not really have any further comments, I think.

13.51 Holden: - I have a few questions that rounded in itself is aimed at both statements.

13.51 - And then I wonder if first, you told the same to both teams of experts?

13.51 Breivik: - I told the same thing, but I was probably more pompous in preparation to Sørheim and Husby.

13.52 Holden: - What is it ...

13.52 Breivik: - As I was during the police interrogation as well.

13.52 Holden: - What was portrayed as more pompous on your part?

13.52 Breivik: - That was what I described earlier, that is, instead of saying that in the case of a few individuals, who are in Europe, so I described it as a pan-European military order and used pompous words, then. Instead of actually using the words that I used for the opposite the past. And that was something that I found myself, and that I conveyed to the police even before the report of these two experts arrived. It was a month before, before the first came, I said it.

13.53 Holden: - Are there other conditions that can vary in your, in your dealings with the two experts?

13.53 Breivik: - No, I had decided to choose the way to produce it. And when I told part of the compendium. I told all that I had told the police, but all that I conveyed to Husby and Sørheim, it was identical to what I conveyed to the police.

13.53 Holden: - Not too long ago, before the break, so you answered in a fairly direct question from me, that bushido was the most effective strategy for preparing for 22 July. I understood you right?

13.53 Breivik: - Meditation, yes.

13.53 Holden: - Meditation. And bushido is a key part of the meditation?

13.54 Breivik: - Well, there is something of the same principles used, yes. So you can, you can say that.

13.54 Holden: - I see you on, or of the statement, the second statement, as it is referred bushido on a few occasions.

13.54 - Pages 196, 199, 246, for example. Was the word bushido known to Husby and Sørheim?

13.54 Breivik: - No, I think not. But I described meditation. And I wrote that, and it is exactly the same as I said to the police that I have driven a systematic desensitising through meditation. And when I listen to these songs and use it. So everything is explained to the experts. Explained everything in a thorough manner. And then they had very much information, and so they have decided to, what to say, to construct the calls based on the information.

13.55 Holden: - Bushido, it is mentioned in the manifesto? Or compendium?

13.55 Breivik: - It's not there.

13.55 Holden: - No. It's probably not.

13.55 Breivik: - No.

13.55 Holden: - When did you become familiar with this technique?

13.55 Breivik: - In 2006.

13.55 Holden: - If you consider it important, what is the reason for it, for example, was mentioned in the manifest or in dialogue with the first two expert?

13.56 Breivik: - I have described it, so what you're saying now is wrong. However, it was the word bushido not mentioned. However, detailed descriptions of meditation technique is described. And, but, the only thing I did not mention the word bushido.

13.56 Holden: - The first time it is mentioned, in questioning by police 20 December. It is thus by statement number one is issued and the media ban is lifted?

13.56 - Did you study, or, you read something about bushido after declaration number one was issued and 20 December?

13.56 Breivik: - What I've conveyed, it is from the knowledge that I have obtained. But, then, it's primarily it. History.

13.56 Holden: - Primarily it. Does that mean that ...

13.57 Breivik: - I also read more about Japan in prison, but I was aware of the bushido for many, many years.

13.57 Holden - Have you read about bushido in prison?

13.57 Breivik: - Yes, I am, because it is not possible to read about Japan without reading about bushido. So ...

13.57 Holden: - I'm not sure if everyone will agree with you in just that statement.

13.57 Breivik: - No, but it is a key part of the Japanese culture. That's hard to avoid it if you read about Japan.

13.57 Holden: - So you've read about bushido in prison?

13.57 Breivik: - I have it too, yes.

13.57 Holden - Have you read about bushido in prison after the first expert declaration?

13.58 Breivik: - It is possible. Maybe, maybe not. I do not know.

13.58 Holden: - Is this something here you have come on later?

13.58 Breivik: - No, and it is well, it's just going to the compendium, so there are detailed descriptions of it. The reason I did not use the word bushido then, because many cultural conservatives do not like multiculturalism. And they, by a way of trying to incorporate traditions from other cultures, one should really be a little careful with it because there are many who would react to it. But meditation is from there, but I did not mention that word as the cause.

13.58 Holden: - So it was a conscious choice on your part?

13.58 Breivik: - Yes, that was it. But then I felt I had to explain it and justify it, and then I have to really explain thoroughly how it comes from and why I chose to write about it.

13.59 Holden: - Did you feel the need to explain and justify it to Thurs the 1st expert?

13.59 Breivik: - I explained it in detail for those, but I did not use the word bushido.

13.59 Holden: - What were you explained in detail to them?

13.59 Breivik: - That the essential strategy that I had opted to de ..., ie, desensitise myself, was to meditate. And when I did it by listening to some ideological songs and also undergo this video.

13.59 Holden: - Is the key elements of bushido, that now you have mentioned?

13.59 Breivik: - Well, the contents of meditation can be selected even, as I have said earlier. But meditation is important in Japan, yes. It was used by warriors.

14.00 Holden: - Let's see, Engh?

14.00 Arntzen: - The defenders, you have foreshadowed questions.

14.00 Bæra: - Yes, I have a few questions, and then mainly to the first report. Breivik, I'll go back a bit and start with the conclusion of the first report. It concluded that the you are criminally insane, that you are delusional, and that you are criminally insane. It means yes, as you know, that if the court finds that the reason you can not be punished, sentenced to prison in the ordinary sense, but is transferred to compulsory psychiatric care. You have said little about this in your op-ed on page four, about what you think about the circuit. Can you tell us about that?

14.01 Breivik: - It is well that a political activist that is the worst thing that can happen to end up in a mental hospital, because it will delegitimize everything that he can bring. But I know of course that in many ways it is the more comfortable being in a mental hospital. And that's why most people who get the diagnosis accept the verdict without fighting against it. But the only exception is perhaps political activists who will fight against it. But everyone else will probably accept it. Because it is known that it's in many ways a little better.

14.01 Bæra: - During talks with Husby and Sørheim. Did you think that it could come to such a conclusion?

14.01 Breivik: - No, I thought not. Did not think they would, what to say, abusing the confidence I showed them. If not.If I had some thoughts about it, so I probably would not talk to them whatsoever.

14.02 Bæra: - One of the first report is built, which is a so-called SCID one test, which is part of a psychometrics test. This will be the experts have to say about when to submit their reports. But I would like to go into some of the observations they have drawn into these assessments. And then I'm on page 210 in the first report. And it's module B: - Psychotic and associated symptoms. There, the experts emphasized that the subject scored inclusive on the issue of self-perpetuated delusions, he very many cases have been added specifically noted. He believes that his surroundings, both privately and in previous employment, the former school context and in his political involvement in Progress, was noticed as very special and that everyone remembers him as quite extraordinary. Very special and extraordinary. What do you think about how they arrived at those conclusions?

14.03 Breivik: - I remember when I spoke to the two, so were.I remember we talked about finding keys to a person, and I behaved, what to say, quite generous to them. So, I worked very deliberately, with great confidence. And I noticed that they were irritated about it in a very great extent, especially when I told him about the money that I had generated. I found out how to push the buttons to Husby and I did it a couple of times, and I noticed that he was severely provoked. And that's probably thanks to you, the phrase that came out of it.

14.03 Bæra: - Were you there when, you were special?

14.04 Breivik: - No, I never said that. I have said exactly the opposite. I have said that people had certainly a good impression of me, but they remember me probably not. And, but, as I said, they have invented many claims to support the conclusion that they concluded very early. That is why it is much fiction. And, I never said that.

14.04 Bæra: - To be a little more specific. You say that "they remember me probably not." Who are they?

14.04 Breivik: - No, for example, the commitment I had politically. I spent very little time there, and I do not think they remember me once, most of them.

14.04 Bæra: - And how were you in school, then?

14.04 Breivik: - School cliques, then, the ones I've known, they know I've gone. The ones I had contact with it, it's well anyone remember me and some who do not remember me. But I did not come with the utterances.

14.05 Bæra: - You were extraordinary and special?

14.05 Breivik: - No, I was a normal person, I think.

14.05 Bæra: - So are we a little further, the next section, which also has scored high and inclusive of. There is persecution delusions. When the emphasis is on: "He thinks the death threats of labor policy. Think it takes civil war. He thinks himself, friends and family are facing imminent extinction, with genocide and expulsion from home. We have all heard you say something about the previous week, but I need you to clarify it a bit. What do you mean we are in a civil war and that we are facing an imminent extinction?

14.06 Breivik: - I have never, well, I know what a normal, conventional civil war. And it's like you saw in Serbia. That you have people with guns running around in the streets, almost. That is what we see in Syria now. And so it is of course not in Norway. What I have described as Phase 1 civil war in the compendium, it is a situation where there may be a terror attack every three years or every five years. And it is important to understand the difference. What I have said is that we are trying to avoid it being a civil war in Europe. So I do not think there is a civil war in Europe now, of course. That's what's not. But then you can start looking at Luton and some other highly loaded and no-zones in Europe. And then one may almost say that there is civil war conditions, when not even the police and emergency vehicles dare to run into these places.

14.07 Bæra: - But this is not Norway, Breivik, here we are talking about "death threats of labor policy and think it takes civil war." How can it.?

14.07 Breivik: - I do not think it takes civil war. And the way it is described there, then it is completely wrong. When it comes to labor policy, it is a policy I disagree, and I'm willing to fight against the direction of Norway takes now and the development happens. But anyway, I do not think that. There is no one that is immediately threatened, and I myself or my family's not there. It is fictitious claims. I have explained quite thoroughly what I mean by that we are approaching towards a civil war. But it takes quite a long enough time before we are there for decades.

14.08 - I do not think it is going civil war in the country. And the way it is described there, then it is completely wrong. When it comes to labor policy as it is a policy that I disagree with, and I'm willing to fight against the direction in Norway now and the developments we see. But, that I, I do not believe that, no one is immediately threatened. And I myself or my family, it's not that. So it is fictitious claims.

14.08 Bæra: - But you frame the (unclear, Breivik interrupts).

14.08 Breivik: - I have explained quite thoroughly what I mean by that we are approaching towards a civil war, however, but it takes quite a long enough time before we are there for decades.

14.08 Bæra: - What do you think can be, what you have said then that means that you have come to the conclusion that this is persecution delusions?

14.09 Breivik: - No, I have explained thoroughly what I mean by phase 1, 2 and 3 civil war. And I explained to them that the phase we are in now, there is a phase where there is asymmetric warfare ie there is a terrorist attack now and then, and then it will escalate later in a few decades. I have explained thoroughly. As I have explained thoroughly that there is no civil war, but we are trying to prevent a civil war.

14.09 Bæra: - Did you say the same now for both, or all four,

14.09 Breivik: - Yes, I have said the same thing to both.

14.09 Bæra: - The next thing that you have scored is called the inclusive, there are questions about grandiose delusions, and it was inside the prosecutors. And think, he thinks he has the power to decide who should live and who should die in Norway, and that he may be appointed as regent and his organization Knights Templar takes power in Europe. And when we begin with the first, appointed as the new regent.

14.10 - How can you have come to the conclusion, then, what is,

14.10 Breivik: - I never said that I want to be ruler or leader or anything. So it is pure fiction. As I have said many times I looked at 22 July as a so-called suicide attack, I did not expect to survive, and if you look at the interviews (unclear) police, is described time and again. So it has not happened. What I do however have happened is that they have entered into, in the manifest and where it says an essay I wrote about the monarchy's role in the future, which I have described, we, are we then, that royalists, we support kingdom, but we will not accept a traitor king over, that in the future. We want the royal family should be apolitical, they should stay away from politics and therefore should not be flagged support for the multicultural society in any way. If they choose to do so, then the very unwise, but we do not, we hope that it changes.

14.10 Bæra: - But here it says that "he may be appointed as the new regent", ie you.

14.11 Breivik: - No, that's not true. Not at all. It sounds totally insane. I never said that. So I have not said anything nearby either.

14.11 Bæra: - Have you thought about that?

14.11 Breivik: - No, they, they, what has been discussed has been this Guardian Council, and I said I think it is, that nationalists in the future will seize power in Europe in several countries at least and it is conceivable that the establishment of a Guardian Council or something similar, but it's totally unrealistic that I will have no part in it. And the reason for that is that a person who has done something so horrible that I have made will be a political leper and no serious players will cooperate with such a person, who has done something so cruel. And I am of course aware, and I have said as well, so it's a fictitious claim.

14.12 Bæra: - But when you wrote the compendium, described the new kingdom and the new regent, was, you had yourself in mind?

14.12 Breivik: - Absolutely not. I did not expect to survive 22 July.

14.12 Bæra: - But when you talk about this Guardian Council, which once may have a role in Europe, the Knights Templar, or what is the Guardian Council?

14.13 Breivik: - No, I do not think a person who neither KT network or al-Qaida will have a significant role, because they are simply too barbaric. They are, they are simply barbaric. But, but they will have the opportunity to influence developments. We have certainly seen in the Middle East that al-Qaeda is of great social impact, they manipulate society. Beyond that, they will have no role. They will never rule a country. But for our part, we want to build a nationalist al-Qaeda in Europe, in terms of, for example KT network, develop it further, to fight for our views, but I think that with the barbaric methods which we choose as will, we will never be able to get the power, but we will probably might affect development. But for me it was only to contribute to a campaign. I had no role beyond that.

14.13 Bæra: - What was the ideal goal then, with this action?

14.13 Breivik: - There are four subjects mentioned earlier. Firstly, it was to distribute the compendium. So it was to provoke a witch hunt of moderate cultural conservative and so it was to make those responsible should be held accountable, there are three of them in any case.

14.14 Bæra: - This witch hunt. What was it going to end in? What is the goal of a witch hunt?

14.14 Breivik: - So when moderate cultural conservative and moderate nationalists feel, what to say, this witch hunt that has been going on for 22 July, that is, in principle, every person who criticizes multiculturalism or mass immigration, are labeled as extremist, I call it witch hunt. And as Stoltenberg's speech stressed he is. That he believed that anyone who is critical of mass Muslim immigration or are critical of multiculturalism, he stamped all those extremists. And that, I think that's going to upset many.

14.15 - And then parts of the press followed, and continues ridicule and censorship, and the hunt.

14.15 Bæra: - We're a little ahead of the next, the next thing that is emphasized, and it is this with somatic delusions. And then it says that the subject has scored subthreshold, meaning that the votes in part to questions about somatic delusions as he confirms and been growing concerned that his looks do not meet society's standards of beauty. And therefore considered plastic surgery and dentistry. Are you selfish?

14.16 Breivik: - Well, there were two reasons why I carried one, a rhino plastic surgery when I was 21 years old. And that one was because I was vain then. I was very vain until I was 25 years old. And the second was that I had been attacked by several Muslims who had kinks nose my back. But it was also because I was vain. And there are two reasons. But after I became, after 2005, is well appropriate to say, I have not been vain at all.

14.16 Bæra: - So you were more vain before 2005 than now?

14.17 Breivik: - Yes. Because, that is in 2006, so I decided to go that way as I have done. And I have not been vain for it. But before that, I was very vain. But if you compare a person from Oslo West with as one who comes from the village, you will anyway one from Oslo West will be perceived as very vain, although he in his own eyes maybe not. So it's yes, but I think that I have not been vain since 2005.

14.17 Bæra: - How much do you spend on clothes, or have you spent on clothes and ... after 2005?

14.17 Breivik: - I have not bought a single garment after 2005. So all the clothes I have today I bought in 2005 and earlier.

14.17 Bæra: - And other stuff when one user ... cosmetics, solarium?

14.18 Breivik: - I have not made any purchases until 2005 and the purchases I've made are not significant once, there may be some T-shirts and stuff like that. But then I have not been special, or I have not been a vain after 2005.

14.18 Bæra: - A little, a new theme as well as emphasized in the diagnosis of you. Is also a continuation of what we have looked at, I'll just listen to you if you have said what you think. And that is in charge of deciding who should live and who should die. And what is here said in the report, is that the subject explains the content of their delusions, the responsibility to decide who should live and die with his exceptional and unique features is the most perfect knight after World War II. He believes in this and the prescription is destined to rule and transform Europe. The phenomenon is considered bizarre. So you need not repeat that you said when the prosecutor referred to the A and B and C lists the compendium, but how can this be, what you have said in conversations that make it possible to draw the kind of conclusions?

14.19 Breivik: - One can say that maybe 60, 70 percent of what you said now, it's fictional, it does not. So they have, they have combined some truths with some fictional sentences. So it sounds completely irrational out. The only thing that I have said of what you said now, it's that 22 July, or are perceived as the most lethal and seen from a militant nationalist vision, successful operation since World War II in Europe. I have said, and that's because it's a fact. But I have also said that a perfect and there to strive to be a perfect knight, it is striving to become the perfect foot soldier. So. The utterance as a whole is completely wrong.

14.20 Bæra: - Does that mean you do not consider, see you as the most perfect knight after World War II?

14.20 Breivik: - The most perfect foot soldier after World War II. It could be. In terms of being a militant nationalist, I am enough. But anyway, in other areas, that's eight different fronts you can work and policy, common conventional politics, is one of those. Within just the front as I am, politically motivated violence, then maybe. But on the other seven, I'm the totally insignificant.

14.20 Bæra - Have you claimed, and he thinks he's at and the prescription is destined to rule and transform Europe?

14.21 Breivik: - No, I never said that. And it is absolutely ridiculous assertion. I did not expect to survive 22 July.

14.21 Bæra: - So it is a question, an assessment of whether you have what is known as auditory hallucinations or not. And there you have answered in the negative, meaning that you do not hear voices. But then added further weight to the phenomenon of code that is incomplete information when the subject does not want to talk about how he communicates with his fellow partisans and clients. What can you say about it?

14.21 Breivik: - That's right the firstly not. It is true that I have said that I want to share how I have communicated with the others. For obvious reasons. But it has nothing to do with what they conclude.

14.22 Bæra: - Do you communicate with others?

14.22 Breivik: - I have not communicated with anyone after 22 July.

14.22 Bæra: - So there is a point that is perhaps difficult for yourself to respond to, but I think now at least we should lift it up here. The subject scores inclusive of the category incoherent speech, as he constantly tracks and return to the content of their delusions, near whatever topic being discussed. He's at an association disorder with perseverance, he is not incoherence or latency. The fact that you keep coming back again to the theme of why you did what you did 22 July, what gives?

14.23 Breivik: - That's because it's the topic that you are talking about now. And I'm very interested in politics of course. But that does not mean that one has trouble talking about other things for example. Because I have had a relationship with my friends before 22 July it confirms he is. I've talked to quite different things about them. In addition, I do not think I have any more problems than others to discuss several things and then go back to the first. So, I have absolutely no association disorder.

14.24 Bæra: - We are the to hear more of your friends right here, and when we ask whether the opportunity to talk about other things, what do you think they're going to respond?

14.24 Breivik: - I guess I have talked quite a bit about the politics. To really, try to explain them within certain limits what is going to happen, without really tell anything. So they at least know some of the reason why I was not among them anymore, or that I did what I did. So I guess I've talked a lot about it, I must say.

14.24 Bæra: - You told my colleague, Lippestad, I think it was the other day here in court, that you, that you group of friends were out about once a month until 2011. And that you then went out at different places, Majorstua, Solli square. What was the theme then?

14.25 Breivik: - It was well, we were talking not so much about politics then. Talked about other things.

14.25 Bæra: - Such as?

14.25 Breivik: - Well, they had the their interests, and I was the engaged in what they were interested in as well. So we talked too much about it.

14.25 Bæra: - Can you mention examples?

14.25 Breivik: - No, you can talk about relationships, about the future, about career opportunities, everything that is common to talk about. About topical things, comical things. Most of they've even said on many occasions that I am a funny person, I'm fun to be with. And that's because it is found in a lot of fun together, talk about a lot, talking about the many fun things.

14.26 Bæra: - So you've gone from a life where you have been in relations with other people, like everyone else pretty much is. And then you put in isolation when you were arrested on Utøya 22 July. How did you experience the first time?

14.26 Breivik: - It is impossible to simulate it and prepare for it. So, it's, it's hard to adapt. But after a few weeks it went okay. And, yes, I think I've handled it more than most, really. It is tough to sit iso ..., in an isolation cell for seven months. That's it.

14.26 Bæra: - In the period up to the observation of you started, where, who, you say something about who you had contact with? Because you've been sitting in practice virtually isolated forward to it.

14.27 Breivik: - Until when as you said?

14.27 Bæra: - For the observation began. Staff from Dikemark and forced observation.

14.27 Breivik: - I have not had contact with anyone before. Only health and defenders. No other.

14.27 Bæra: - And then came this observation team, what ... For me, I'm still at this point about talking about other things. What did you talk to the team?

14.27 Breivik: - No, I found the that they had very special kind of humor. And that was quite similar to the humor ... prison officers, and it is a very good humor, which I also share. Quite like crude humor. And there was great social time. We talked about everything.

14.28 Bæra: - What is it all possible?

14.28 Breivik: - No, they wanted to consider me in most settings. And we talked about everything from politics to completely different things.

14.28 Bæra: - And then there are the other things I wonder about you be a little specific on.

14.28 Breivik: - Yes. So, I was the very curious about how their work was, they were both a bit nervous, they were not allowed to talk about all things. But we're talking about everyday stuff too much, there were many topics we could talk about. But we talked about everything and nothing.

14.28 Bæra: - Is humor important to you?

14.29 Breivik: - Humor is very important.

14.29 Bæra: - Why?

14.29 Breivik: - No, it's ... It's hard to explain, it's a central part of life, the way I see it. So it's very important.

14.29 Bæra: - We shall be on a final point within these parameters, in this SCID test. And it is, you score inclusive of weakness of will.

14.30 - And when it says that "as he over a period of at least five years have not been able to live alone. Have received practical help and assistance to all activities of daily living, and have not been in employment or education and negligible extent interacted with others. "What do you think when you hear this?

14.30 Breivik: - Well, I know me not again at all. So, I've run a business before, I had seven employees, up to seven employees. And I have lived alone, Tiedemann Street and Marie Street. And the only reason I rented a room with my mother, was that I had .. wanted to spend the most money on writing the compendium. And then it had been a bit silly to rent an apartment in Tiedemann street for 15,000 a month. So there have nothing to do with whether I managed to stay at home to do. Of course I managed to stay home. It does not match reality, the description.

14.31 Bæra: - Yes, it is the time after 2005 ..

14.31 Breivik: - Yes, and then it intentionally weakness, it says the saying that it is a ridiculous assertion. A person who has done this has happened, has not really proven the opposite.

14.31 Bæra: - When you lived on Vålstua farm, did you live alone?

14.31 Breivik: - Yeah, right.

14.31 Bæra: - Who acted food then?

14.31 Breivik: - No, there's absolutely no problem to stay alone. And I lived alone there and did everything myself.

14.32 Bæra: - Can you just describe it a bit, since it is pointed out that you are unable to live alone?

14.32 Breivik: - No, you are cooking, and doing maintenance on the home, inside and out, cleaning, to do whatever is necessary to stay alone. It is entirely unproblematic.

14.32 Bæra: - And when you lived with your mother helped you in any household where?

14.32 Breivik: - In the setting so she wanted to make a deal. She made one meal every day and so we ate each day. But that's because she wanted to do it, it had not been a problem if I did. But we really talked together only once per day, and it was not because I failed to do things myself, but she wanted to do it, some of those things. But then there was the stage where I almost was not home either, so it was never a problem.

14.33 Bæra: - But it's other things in a condominium than just contact with mother and a meal a day. Was this condominium?

14.33 - In the condominium I know it's face, it's one thing to have an opinion about. You have to do things that help to work to live together with others. Who took care of it?

14.33 Breivik: - She was quite involved in the Community Association and I helped her to formulate letters, amongst others, and did some other things. But anyway, what I did in the stage, so I did quite a few other things that were more difficult and complicated than just that, of course.

14.33 Bæra: - What do you think then?

14.33 Breivik: - No, for example, which they referred to as grandiose delusion. It's like I was part of a group that was involved in sports.

14.34 Bæra: - What is sport?

14.34 Breivik: - It is, therefore, what to say then, raiding in World of Warcraft on a very high level, where the 25 people who have to do synchronized exercises together to overcome ehh. issues. And we were Europe's top guild, and it can be verified. It is extremely difficult, and it depends very extensive collaboration between 25 people. What I have described in the compendium, I think actually it was difficult. I was the leader of a network like a period. And it's almost more difficult than having a company with seven employees. So demanding it. But I do not anticipate that any of the experts know what the sport is, and know the competition level.

14.35 Bæra: - Now, they might not spoken about it, now is it a residence. So then only I ask you directly: - When you lived on Vålstua courtyard, there was someone who helped you there, there were some who came?

14.35 Breivik: - No, it was not.

14.35 Bæra - Cleaning lady, one who acted for you? One that helped you shoveling?

14.35 Breivik: - No, I did everything myself. So it was not a problem.

14.35 Bæra: - When we leave it. Then a little later in this report. Then we're on page 225 It is also important that you have a part, it is called self-made words. It's you know. When it is mentioned here as examples of national Darwinist, Marxist-suicidal and suicidal humanitarianism, Knight Chief Justice, Justiciar Knight Commander, Chief Justiciar Knight Champion and Grandmaster Justiciar Knight. These concepts are described in technical terms being neologisms, but I understand they are your words. What can you say?

14.36 Breivik: - Let's see, there are already well covered in the chronicle.

14.36 Bæra: - Yes, but I'd love to hear you on it. Have you made up those words?

14.36 Breivik: - It is a part of them that I have never uttered at all. And there are some that are described in the Compendium, as proposed.

14.36 Bæra: - But if they are included in the compendium that proposal, it is you who have composed them?

14.36 Breivik: - I'll try to find what I have written about. For example, national-Darwinist, is the word that was used a lot as the 1920s. And it is a familiar word. Some of the words are well known, and others are used in various subcultures online. And the only thing that is new is perhaps the Knight Chief Justice and so on, and it was something that I developed even in connection with the provision of the proposal that I described in the compendium.

14.37 Bæra: - And why did you do that?

14.37 Breivik: - No, it's okay. It's a tradition of revolutionary groups that have titles. For example, the Red Army Faction, named for his command, and some Islamist groups use their own titles, such as mujahedin, and it is tradition to have titles in revolutionary organizations. And it was just a suggestion, really. It is not an existing system, it is really just a suggestion.

14.38 Bæra - Another word that you have used that is not quite common in everyday speech, the martyrdoms gift. What do you mean?

14.38 Breivik: - Just to comment on what you asked about earlier. Thus, the grandmaster also on, it is taken from the original Knights Templar from 1000. So some of it is actually from the original. Chief Justice were derived from the British and Norwegian legal system. There are words used already. But when you come back to what you asked now.

14.38 Bæra: - Yes, but then we may well get a little of it. How many of these words have you invented yourself, when and why did you do it?

14.39 Breivik: - It's really only the Chief Justice really, or composition of it is the new one. But separately, so it is not new. And that was really just a suggestion in connection with what is described in the compendium.

14.39 Bæra: - Is it true that you can find the words, it is ...?

14.39 Breivik: - No, it's not neologism, it is something else entirely. There is a suggestion that others may discard or use.

14.39 Bæra: - But how can it be, then, that here come until you find the word, and it's neologisms?

14.39 Breivik: - There are many unfamiliar phrases and words used in subcultures. As is generally known, so it is understandable that you are unfamiliar with some of it. But yes, it is understandable.

14.40 Bæra: - But I interpret you so it is wrong that there are neologisms?

14.40 Breivik: - Yes, that's right. It is not neologisms.

14.40 Bæra: - And then we go to the martyrdoms gift.

14.40 Arntzen: - Bæra, I have a question regarding the break. Thus, for the court's part that it is okay to continue without a break, if that's okay with the other? If we can get at some of the air conditioner now, so it helps us.

14.40 Bæra: - We're back to the martyrdom gift.

14.40 Breivik: - Mm. It is a tradition that is taken from other cultures. In principle, as applied to the well also from Christian culture, if we look at the martyrdom associated with the original Knights Templar and the Crusades, it's the one gift that one is forgiven for all their sins, if you participate in a crusade.

14.41 - So that's a key part of European history. Also there are other martyrdom gifts that come from such bushido in Japan, which is that when these soldiers, Japanese soldiers as during World War II, would conduct a so-called suicide mission, as did the various gifts. And one of the gifts was such a kind of belt that was sewn by a thousand women, each woman had sewn a stitch each.

14.41 - There were many ritual gifts that they received. And also, yes, there are many such things then, they got the Japanese flag and so on. With the knowledge that they were going to die, there were many ritual gifts. Additionally, in connection with warfare and conflicts around the world, so used, what to say, prostitute for soldiers going on suicide missions, then. Or to be particularly dangerous conflicts. And it is the considered as a gift also.

14.42 Bæra: - Is the neologism?

14.42 Breivik: - Absolutely not. But in Islam, there is also a tradition of martyrdom gifts. But it is more linked to the European version, then, the Christian version.

14.42 Bæra: - I'll leave this with neologisms, and then I into something else more, as I know many questions, and as we have mentioned now before last week. And also with the way you talk. And there is your statement in percentages. To express, I perceive that you are expressing probability. Can you say something about why, what think you of why you use percentage terms, and what you mean by chance?

14.42 Breivik: - It's really to impart more knowledge in less time. That's the main reason.

14.43 Bæra: - Efficiency?

14.43 Breivik: - Yes. Simply. Thus, it is an effective way to communicate, to convey a lot of information in a short time. Then we need illustrations, and if one uses when number-based illustrations, it is an effective way to communicate. And I am fully aware that I use it often, because I think that it is effective.

14.43 Bæra - Have you gotten feedback on that? Before this matter?

14.43 Breivik: - Yes, I have not really there.

14.43 Bæra: - Does it for you, when you say this, this is for you to express yourself effectively, it means that it may not always be so precise when you say that something is 100 percent or 70 percent likely or 30 percent, is it, do you mean when you say there is 30 percent chance that, according to 30 percent, or an estimated?

14.44 Breivik: - It is only an estimate.

14.44 Bæra: - Yes.

14.44 Breivik: - Mm. One assumption.

14.44 Bæra: - A supposition. So I'm going for something completely different, and there is another side of the committee's mandate. It was to assess recurrence risk and dangerous confidentiality, what we call dangerousness criterion. And I know that you have spoken, I am in so far as some of the new expert report also how I know you've talked to the experts about that. In the first expert report, as you say, it is said that: - The subject also included the experts in his homicidal ideation.

14.45 - Mind appeared after the subject for some time had had discussions with the experts. The experts find reason to mention this because the subject homicidal ideation at this obviously is dynamic and influenced by the context subject at all times is in. The experts assume that a similar scenario could occur in the future and considering that there is a significant risk that people in the subject's proximity to staff the prison or hospital may also be part of his paranoid delusional world and included in his homicidal ideation. What do you think about this?

14.46 Breivik: - No, that after 22 July so I have been in contact with maybe 200 different police officers, no maybe 100 at least, and 50 different prison officers, and perhaps a total of 300 people, and I have never behaved threatening to any of those. I have always been polite to everyone. And I have never been threatening to any of those, including Husby and Sørheim, so it is fictional, I have never threatened them and I have never, there is no murder list. There was a list before 22 July, but not after. And of course it must be a list before, you have to reason through to the goals they choose, but not after 22 July. And I've never been threatening to someone over the head after 22 July. So it is fictional.

14.47 Bæra: - Now we come to a bit like big, big question. What do you think you will use, what, how do you see that your life will turn out after we finish a trial?

14.47 Breivik: - That everything depends upon. Whether I shall be, er, chemical lobotomy or so I end up in jail for life. There are no options really.

14.47 Bæra: - The chemical lobotomy so do you mean?

14.47 Breivik: - No, either so I end up in a madhouse or so I end up in jail for life. There is no alternative.

14.48 Bæra: - But then we take jail first, how will it, what would you spend your time there?

14.48 Breivik: - I will try to write in prison, that I do. But I knew before I started this here that my life would end, and whether I would be killed or I would be in prison for life. But that's okay.

14.48 Bæra: - Was that why you were so keen to get access to your PC and ...

14.48 Breivik: - It was enough.

14.48 Bæra - and (unclear), 22 July.

14.48 - And if you are transferred to mental health care, etc., what will you do?

14.48 Breivik: - I'm not very worried about it anymore now, I think that the whole Norway has seen that I am not irrational, and I'm no longer worried about it. And I tend to be right. So I'm no longer worried about it.

14.49 Bæra: - When I'm done with the questions I had. Only to hear my fellow defense lawyer. (Unclear). Yes, thank you.

14.49 Arntzen: - Yes, when we got on this air conditioner, but it blows possibly much of Engh and Hein Bæra. Is it okay? Should we have it a little? Just say if it gets too cold, when you need it. When I give the word to counsel, and I ask you also to customize the time remaining. It is both expert as I might think have some questions on this topic and it can be the members have questions. There you go.

14.49 Hallgren: - Thank you. Breivik, you felt something yesterday when autopsy reports were presented?

14.49 Breivik: - Of course I did.

14.49 Lawyer Siv Hallgren: - Can you describe it?

14.50 Breivik: - It is impossible not to be touched by it, and it's brutal reports that provide gruesome details. And you really have to use much energy to not let themselves might affect it, to not let themselves affected by it.

14.50 Hallgren: - There is someone watching your facial expressions and perhaps the lack of expression of feelings then, how do you rate your appearance even when you are sitting here in the courtroom, during these things?

14.50 Breivik: - I do not think people should have such high expectations that I break down because I have prepared myself for several years at 22 July, especially mentally. And I have prepared myself with pretty gruesome images. In fact, even more gruesome images than those that have come forward in the investigation, to be ready for the worst.

14.50 Hallgren: - You have followed through on the photos here now?

14.51 Breivik: - I have access to all the pictures I have seen all photos. I considered the whether I should protect myself from seeing the worst pictures, but I've decided to see everyone, and I have seen all too. And it's gruesome photos. It is, absolutely.

14.51 Hallgren: - However you describe it is cruel, but what do you feel yourself?

14.51 Breivik: - No, that is, the key is the what the victims and their families feel and it is, it's indescribable, I have deprived them of everything they have. And I know what I've done.

14.51 Hallgren: - But you're concerned word. Can you put some other word for it than that it is indescribable?

14.51 Breivik: - So, what I have done, that is, it goes against human nature and there is scarcely words for the suffering and pain I have caused to all the victims and their families. It may well not be described better than that.

14.52 Hallgren: - Have you?

14.52 Breivik: - But if I'm going to let it go inwards me to take it inwards me, so I'm not going to do it, because I had not managed to survive it.

14.52 Hallgren: - Mm. There have also mentioned before. Do you see that you should ever take it inwards you?

14.52 Breivik: - I do not think so.

14.52 Hallgren: - No. Do you have any vulnerabilities, you think?

14.52 Breivik: - I have it.

14.52 Hallgren: - Can you describe them?

14.52 Breivik: - I do not want to describe it. There is only one person who knows them.

14.52 Hallgren: - Who is it?

14.52 Breivik: - There is one, a friend of mine.

14.52 Hallgren: - Is he Norwegian?

14.52 Breivik: - Yeah, he is.

14.52 Hallgren: - Is he the network, this Knights Templar?

14.52 Breivik: - He is not.

14.52 Hallgren: - So it's more a friend?

14.53 Breivik: - Yes. And so it is, it is of course, I can the collapse too, but, I'd probably do it under certain circumstances.

14.53 Hallgren: - What circumstances would it be?

14.53 Breivik: - I do not want to go into that.

14.53 Hallgren: - Why not?

14.53 Breivik: - It is not appropriate. It is conveyed alre ..., people are aware of it. I have spoken to the police.

14.53 Hallgren: - In it, there is a conversation with Tørrissen cited in the report number two and it is on page 225, defender. Where do you, where you are asked: - Do you have vulnerable sides? And so it is reproduced here that: - The biggest fear is well that the people are not loved, and it is well and my. Have you said this?

14.53 Breivik: - Yes, I have said something similar.

14.53 Hallgren: - correct?

14.53 Breivik: - Yes, in a way.

14.53 Hallgren: - Did you feel loved?

14.54 Breivik: - Yes, before. Before 22 July, absolutely. But, yes. So the answer is yes to that.

14.54 Hallgren: - But before 22 July, when? Have you been loved until that date, it's that you say?

14.54 Breivik: - Yes. Mm.

14.54 Hallgren: - By who?

14.54 Breivik: - Of all who were close to me.

14.54 Hallgren: - And that was?

14.54 Breivik: - It was the friends and family. So, love is the one word, but to appreciate is perhaps a better word. Everyone wants, that is, instinctively to be loved. That is why one, it's well an instinct you are born with, perhaps. So, that's why you are a good person, then. And that is why it is contrary to, which is why it may not appeal to very many to go that way as I did. It really goes against the flow, and end up being so incredibly hateful and demonized that it is difficult to exist, almost. However, it is the irrational in a way, but it's only those who are very radical who does.

14.54 Hallgren: - Did I understand you right that you believe you'd rather be appreciated than loved?

14.55 Breivik: - Both are well correct, there is something of the same.

14.55 Hallgren: - Okay. The 22 July, you had some thoughts on what Knights Templar would think and feel about you?

14.55 Breivik: - Absolutely.

14.55 Hallgren: - What was the mind?

14.55 Breivik: - It was Utøya, and how, I have thought inconceivable much about it, how it would be perceived. Whether it will be perceived as a legitimate target or not. And even today it is, half believe that it was just over, while half believe that it was legitimate.

14.55 Hallgren: - But you were determined to go on Utøya then, in the morning?

14.55 Breivik: - No, that is what I thought was that I must do all I can to not end up in a situation where I just have Utøya aim again. And so I worked 18 hours every day, 16-18 hours, to not end up in that situation.

14.55 Hallgren: - Yes, thanks, admin.

14.56 Arntzen: - Are there more aid lawyers who have questions?

14.56 Elgesem: - We have some, it's probably a question here from both myself and the attorney Larsen. Just grab hold of one point from your responses to questions from law Hallgren. You said that half of the network, I understood it correctly, believes that Utøya ...

14.56 Breivik: - Now, now, I spoke, now I'm not referring to the KT network, for that, I do not know.

14.56 Elgesem: - Ok, just no, that was my question viz.

14.56 Breivik: - But I'm talking about militant nationalists in general.

14.56 Elgesem: - Yes, and how do you know?

14.56 Breivik: - That's the impression I got from the information I have been given access to the event.

14.56 Elgesem: - By letter?

14.56 Breivik: - Among other things.

14.57 Elgesem: - Okay. I have some questions for you as, like, or that I want to ask you, and just as I also ask that you think carefully about some answers when I ask them. Firstly, in this respect, with the narcissistic disorder as the last two experts have found. You answered that it was not likely that you were so, because you have put yourself in a situation that is very difficult, of course, now today. But can you imagine, you have at some point going forward? Have you imagined yourself at any time during this period before and after 22 July that in the future you will get an acknowledgment that you like?

14.57 Breivik: - So, what, 22 July is not about me or about Utøya or government building, the way I look at it. It's about the future of Norway, and it's about the future of Europe. It is the thoughts I've had all along.

14.57 Elgesem: - So you may not have communicated that because, that in the future will be some who look at your actions as appropriate. It's not what you have communicated to the experts?

14.58 Breivik: - Well, it's probably always someone looking at those legitimate. And I've been interested in it, of course. But that does not mean that I see myself as important. But I see the game as important, and it is important that I have not hurt it, I have benefited our goals, I kept on saying. So I'm concerned about it.

14.58 Elgesem: - Okay. An entirely different question. You have said here in court as well, and for that matter in interviews, that it was, right before the first shots were fired at Utøya, it was much resisted within you. And that forces you who said that this would not do, but you overcame those in so far as there. If we think a little away from Utøya and a little further back in time, you've had this type, or have you had homicidal ideation also previously? As you have repressed, a little farther back?

14.58 Breivik: - It is the little mistake to view it as homicidal ideation. Thus, one Afghan soldier, you, even though he has been ordered to kill Taliban soldiers, so you accusing's not an Afghanistan soldier for killing tanks. He does what is duty.

14.59 Elgesem: - But you, have you had thoughts like that before?

14.59 Breivik: - I have considered politically motivated violence, even earlier. And earlier when I was maybe 19 years old.

14.59 Elgesem: - Exactly. Have you had trouble keeping it in check? Or have you dealt with it that way like that here, it should not do?

14.59 Breivik: - No. I have not had trouble keeping it in check, no.

14.59 Elgesem: - No, but you have kept it at bay? Up to 22 July, I realize. Of fact.

14.59 Breivik: - Well, there are quite wrong to say. I have considered it before, but it's the only thing.

14.59 Elgesem: - But about since you were 19, was it right?

15.00 Breivik: - No, it was when I reviewed it the first time, yes.

15.00 Elgesem: - But regardless of politics and regardless of the Labour Party, have you had the kind of thoughts in other contexts?

15.00 Breivik: - I have, it's not something I think about very much.

15.00 Elgesem: - No, I understand. But once, or sometimes?

15.00 Breivik: - Yes, I have.

15.00 Elgesem: - Okay.

15.00 Breivik: - Well, just politically motivated violence, that is.

15.00 - No violence ...

15.00 Elgesem: - You said to have spent much time in self-study, and you have ...

15.00 Breivik: - Yes, that is, only to conclude. Thus, the goal is to constantly been conducting a campaign, it's not a case of random violence. Thus, all those years of planning has led to the action. And that does not necessarily mean that one is an unstable person who wants to hurt anyone around him.

15.01 Elgesem: - No. And your explanation is that it has always been a political motivation behind the tank, is that correct?

15.01 - Ok. You testified that you have spent around 15,000 hours on self-study, and significant time on the manifest. You work with so many types of questions in the Compendium. The question of religious orders such as the high level of detail, and also in that of how to test a knight, or whether it is a true knight and stuff, which goes into detail on issues that perhaps many would think was, indeed, not all would be very concerned anyhow. Are you a person who is thoroughly at that kind of thing?

15.01 Breivik: - The compendium is the side of a tiny tiny group of people. And it is not meant for the public, as it is, I fully understand that many people think that it says seems totally screwed. But you must know that it is made of a very small group of people who are very radical.

15.02 Elgesem: - Well, you do not want it to get any great extent, is that correct?

15.02 Breivik: - Absolutely not.

15.02 Elgesem: - No. Right, okay.

15.02 Breivik: - But anyway, if you break it down, you may as well say that the primary message has reached out to many, but just the peripheral essays that you are referring to now, they've got no interest for 99.9 per cent.

15.02 Elgesem: - No, but you have spent much time on it?

15.02 Breivik: - I have spent much time on it, yes.

15.02 Elgesem: - Are you the type who spends much time on stuff like that? Taking a thorough investigation?

15.02 Breivik: - On things like that, that there was one thing that I would do. And as I did. But stuff like that is wrong to say.

15.03 Elgesem: - Yes, just one final question. When you went into, this year where you just played World of Warcraft. It was a year where you had a lot of joy, or it was a year in which you, that you thought was difficult on a personal level?

15.03 Breivik: - It was a year where I had a lot of joy, yes.

15.03 Elgesem: - Exactly. The very last question, when you say you have experienced an intolerable injustice in what you call, or political context, you, are you concerned about justice outside the policy? And have you experienced any other types of intolerable injustice that you can describe to us?

15.03 Breivik: - No, people are trying to connect, that my childhood and stuff like that to 22 July. But there is no relevance at all. It has the a relevance that I became politically active, but my childhood has been good. And ...

15.03 Elgesem: - It was not really about childhood necessarily, that is.

15.04 Breivik: - Hm?

15.04 Elgesem: - It was not necessarily about childhood.

15.04 - But if otherwise, this strong commitment in any unfair that you have experienced.

15.04 Breivik: - I think I really have been very lucky person. I have always been resourceful. And I've had great contacts. I think that one, perhaps with poor people from poor backgrounds, would not be able to do what I have done.

15.04 Elgesem: - Okay, thank you, when I leave the word to the attorney Larsen.

15.04 Larsen: - Yes. I will continue a bit Breivik. And just the first bit where Siv Hallgren dropped in place, it runs good, Breivik?

15.04 Breivik: - Yes, that's okay.

15.04 Larsen: - Yes, fine. Because it's 22 July and how your state was the day this is about. So, you were insane that day. And therefore I want to say something about that way of you got up in the morning that day, that is, how experienced your own situation, your mental state that day?

15.05 Breivik: - No, as I said earlier was that I was very worried that I would be scared that day. And I was especially worried that I would be scared and could not sleep that night. But as it turned out I was so exhausted that I fell asleep right away. And early in the morning, so I knew what to do. I made a list, mentally. And so I worked through every single thing. Many problems occurred, and I concluded that the attack on the government building had actually failed before I had started. Because I could not get there before 14 o'clock.

15.05 Larsen: - Yes, and that you have the earlier last week said anything to him, you needed to sleep and so on, but words did you ...

15.06 Breivik: - Not just that either, because I had ended up in the joint, and just that in itself resulted in a scenario in which two-thirds were on vacation. So it was really just the disaster.

15.06 Larsen: - Yes, but now I'm concerned 22 July to think back. Did you eat anything that day?

15.06 Breivik: - Sure, I stood up and made food, and made a packed lunch. And ate normally.

15.06 Larsen - You made a packed lunch? How would you have it going?

15.06 Breivik: - I should have it on Utøya.

15.06 Larsen - On Utøya? Yes, exactly. And when, in other words, you are saying that you were afraid of being afraid closest. So, you were afraid of being afraid, almost. And then my follow-up to it, were you, you made some of orientation around like that, no, I'll let this be, or should I not do it, that did, were you anything like mode that day?

15.07 Breivik: - I thought at the time.

15.07 Larsen: - You thought it all the time. And can you tell us more about how you were thinking when you thought it all the time?

15.07 Breivik: - The first thing I thought when I got up, it was that, okay today I'm going to die. And then I thought, that's right, I'm really very little keen on. And then I thought, well, I just have to do it.

15.07 Larsen - You just have to do it?

15.07 Breivik: - Yes, I have planned it for so long.

15.07 Larsen: - Well, you had some qualms, you would not die, but you had something else ...

15.07 Breivik: - Yes, well, I was not afraid to die, but ...

15.07 Larsen: - Yes, I know, but when you do that kind of reviews that you say you do all the time, did you have any other types of assessments than this that you were so keen to die?

15.08 Breivik: - No, I thought. I thought not really to survive, because, well, if I was going to survive, I had both thought that it had indeed become a life worse than death. To survive this here. So then I thought, that's right, I'm not going to survive.

15.08 Larsen: - No, but, then, we know that you got yourself into ...

15.08 Breivik: - And I did, therefore, reviews the entire time. I considered all the time, there were problems, I had to reconsider, I had to make new assessments as a result of errors, other things. I had to adapt the strategy plan. All day, ie, even when I was on my way, I had to make adjustments, new assessments. On Utøya, many times. So it was a ...

15.08 Larsen - I will take hold of a situation. You said that you were 200 meters from the government building. And on examination by the prosecutor, so when you described that you were in a special mode. Do not use fight and flight, as we have heard before, but rather try to put into words what you, how were you mentally 200 meters from the government building?

15.09 Breivik: - When the plan was that I would go out and put on these PST magnet pieces. And then I thought I could not go out, because then people can catch me. The armor that I wore and the equipment I had weighed very much. And it makes it quite easy to overwhelm a person. So I thought that I should drop the plan. So I set on the blue lights instead. It was also a planned course. Also I thought when I was there that this is the last chance to cancel.

15.09 Larsen - Last chance to cancel, yes. And how many seconds was that thought in your head if you try to answer it?

15.09 Breivik: - Well I was there in 120 seconds, approximately, and ...

15.10 Larsen: - Yes, and when you think that you cancel, there are some special people you are thinking of, or any reactions or what? What is it that makes Breivik feel that now I wonder if I should cancel? What is it?

15.10 Breivik: - I considered well not to cancel, I was thinking that the situation I'm in now, I've never been in before. Now I'm going to die in two minutes. And very many others will die too.

15.10 Larsen: - Yes, right, but we know that you are not canceled, but you had a though. So when you decide "I will not cancel, I will move on," what is it that is up in your head then?

15.10 Breivik: - can not think properly. It's hard to describe it, the brain is bombarded with a thousand thoughts. And you know you're going to die in two minutes. And that's fine, as you depart. But I was so nervous that I remember that I ran on top edge and barely managed to run right with the car.

15.11 Larsen - And I will over to Utøya, for you have said in your explanation, it was the worst day of your life. And you say that's pretty fast when you get caught. And try to explain why you even then, 22 July puts words that this is the worst day of your life. How is your mental state then, Breivik?

15.11 Breivik: - No, I think that when I went to go back to when I parked the car, I thought, well also that when my body is torn in detonation, if it would hurt or how it would being.

15.11 Larsen: - Yes, as you rated like "how does it feel to be killed." But try to go over to Utøya. Why is it the worst day of your life?

15.11 Breivik: - No, well, all that I did on 22 July, it goes against human nature. You force yourself to do something you do not want to do, and that you have dreaded up for two years.

15.11 Larsen: - Were you scared out there on Utøya?

15.12 Breivik: - I was very nervous, but not scared.

15.12 Larsen - I'm just a little game by the first expert report. But before I do, I'll just ask you: - You mentioned you you thought that the first two experts had decided early. Can you describe, in that context, how you experienced the dialogue with the last two? Did you experience the same approach on their part? Had they decided early?

15.12 Breivik: - I was not very worried about it because the conversations were taped. And I knew that all they would write in the report could be verified. So I was somewhat apprehensive about it.

15.12 Larsen - OK, so you were not so concerned about how it will be concluded and how early.?

15.12 Breivik: - Did not think about it.

15.12 Larsen - OK, I will enter on the first expert report, on page 204. Do you have it in front of you, Breivik.

15.12 Breivik: - No, but it's no big deal.

15.12 Larsen: - No, ok, you remember what it says?

15.13 Breivik: - Yes.

15.13 Larsen: - Yes. Because, there is the. It's a bit like following up its your defender Bæra asked. There you are considered under such a global Assessment Functioning score. Have you put yourself into what this means?

15.13 Breivik: - That about.

15.13 Larsen - That about, yes. For you are in any case under this thing called GAF-F, that.I can bare.til court orientation .. that one finds this is that considering social and occupational functioning on a hypothetical one, continuous scale for mental health and disease. And where did you get score 23 And score between 30 and 21 then you will be unable to function in almost all areas. Considered yourself that way 22 July or later?

15.13 Breivik: - One who is 23, is the retarded. I've never seen myself like that, no.

15.13 Larsen: - It is, for example, "stay in bed all day, no job, friends or home," it says. Just answer .. you were like that, like you see it?

15.14 Breivik: - No, the score does not describe me at all.

15.14 Larsen - So I'm off to the next, which is GAF-S. And where did you get... down two, where it says "serious psychopathological conditions, needs constant attention. Supervision and protection over time is also considered to be present. What's your response to that?

15.14 Breivik: - Well, it.The person who is described in the report, not me. So it's true then of course not with me.

15.14 Larsen: - But why do you think they have concluded that way then?

15.14 Breivik: - I think that they have concluded early, and they have substantiated the premises afterwards. And if one considers the premise they have assumed, then votes the GAF-one function and symptom reasonably well. Thus, it reflects the person they have described. But that person is not me.

15.15 Larsen - I will enter on suicide risk, it is considered on page 205 And where does it say that there is an ongoing and high risk, middle of the page. Can you comment on that first generally, and then I'll ask you some more specific later. In general, there has been a high and ongoing, or an ongoing high risk for being in suicide in your case?

15.15 Breivik: - No. It does not. I have never been suicidal.

15.15 Larsen: - No.

15.15 Breivik: - And I'm not going to be either.

15.15 Larsen: - No. I want onto it on the second expert report is from Tørrissen and Aspaas. And it there on page 143, in their report which is then prison health by Ila its review of the ratings of you, Breivik. And first I want to ask, do you remember when you were considered early by health professionals after you came to Ila?

15.15 - Yes, you remember who rated you?

15.16 Breivik: - There were several individuals.

15.16 Larsen: - Several individuals,

15.16 Breivik: - And I remember the name of them, yes.

15.16 Larsen - Remember a prison doctor Haukeland?

15.16 Breivik: - Sure.

15.16 Larsen - If we look at page 144 of the Court's orientation, the top or the second paragraph there on page 144, then Haukeland writes four days after you came in, that the 27th July that "Upon my exam today I find no signs of depression or psychosis. The risk of suicide is considered to be low." Are you, were you agree or disagree with Haukeland in what he wrote?

15.16 Breivik: - I completely agree.

15.16 Larsen - You absolutely agree. Have any of healthcare in Dike, no Ila any time considered you as psychotic or suicidal as far as you know?

15.16 Breivik: - They have not done that.

15.17 Larsen: - No. How many did, how many people were involved in the period from 27 July way around?

15.17 Breivik: - It was at least ten people.

15.17 Larsen: - Yes, all right.

15.17 Breivik: - Maybe more.

15.17 Larsen - Ten people, maybe more. Yes. Has there been psychiatrists and psychologists?

15.17 Breivik: - Yes, both psychiatrists and psychologists. General practitioners. Psychiatric nurses, regular nurses.

15.17 Larsen - I only have two questions left. One is this the Bushido code prosecutor asked you. Is it true that you wanted to have Japanese experts in the matter?

15.17 Breivik: (Unclear).

15.17 Larsen - It can be read online on 6 August.

15.17 Breivik: - There I said it was that I do not think any court psychiatrists from Norway will be objective and I think that the probability of a correct assessment would apply to court psychiatrists from a country where the state ideology is monoculturalism and it is Japan and South Korea. So I think that they had been going for a more accurate evaluation.

15.18 Larsen - How early were you in the course of a way portrayed the issue of Japanese experts?

15.18 Breivik: - I think I said the day after.

15.18 Larsen: - Okay. Yes, we can read it in the newspaper on 6 August at least if we go in,

15.18 Breivik: - Yes, all right. I think I already said that the day after I will not get any objective assessment of Norwegian law psychiatrists.

15.18 Larsen: - Yes, exactly. Then it's back to a theme before I finish quite short and it's, you know the that the expert report of particular Husby and Sørheim then it's made a lot of things about your childhood.

15.19 - Yes. And do you have any comment on the appearance of the Child recommended that you should no longer live with your mother?

15.19 Breivik: - It was completely unknown to me until I read the report now (unclear).

15.19 Larsen: - But you can something in a way that we see today from where it might have something to do your story, you've rejected it.

15.19 - But I ask you to reflect on it.

15.19 Breivik: - I have thought a lot about it and I have no memories of before I'm four years old.

15.19 - No memories whatsoever. And thus, it has no context. I ran a business and had up to seven employees for only a few years ago. All this happened here after 2002 and so I was there until 2006.

15.19 Larsen: - But you do not have any memories of it, it needs to have some, it can not have formed you anyway?

15.19 Breivik: - No, I had excess caregivers, I have had all my life. There has never been any lack of it, rather the opposite,

15.20 Larsen: - For those who belong here and see you here, I think there are very many who wonder if there is something wrong with you, Breivik. So what is it about this (unclear, Breivik and Larsen speaks in unison).

15.20 Breivik: - Yes, I fully understand that people do not comprehend why 22 July came and the main reason why they fail to understand it's because they have too little knowledge of militant nationalism, and what has been happening in Norway. It's 40 attacks, few people in this room know that there have been 40 attacks, politically motivated attacks in Norway, and they are not aware of how other similar groups like al-Qaeda work up in it either.

15.20 Larsen - I'll grab just that, ie.

15.20 Breivik: - I fully understand that people do not comprehend it.

15.20 Larsen - I hear the you that you say time and again, I am a militant nationalist, you're also a violent nationalist because you have used violence.

15.21 Breivik: - Militant and violent are the same.

15.21 Larsen - Militant and violent, ok. I hear that's what you want to be. But then there are some here at least as (inaud.) mean that you have delusions and psychotic, and how do you find a way to not be heard on the message?

15.21 Breivik: - It's not, it's not surprising. I've written about it in the compendium that people will look at me like crazy. At most want, ie not fathom it. And I also knew already before 22 July that it is, it's great understanding of bearded jihadists, for it is a shame on them, but there is no understanding of militant nationalists, and I am aware of. I am fully aware that they were sent in a madhouse after World War II, many in Norway, because they were anti-communists.

15.22 Larsen: - And then completely conclusion, and the law is like Breivik, that one should have the inability realistic assessment of relations with the outside world to be assessed to be psychotic in the legal sense. Did you inability to realistically assess the relationship with the outside world 22 July? Hm?

15.22 Breivik: - Sure, absolutely.

15.22 Larsen: - Were you not able or were you?

15.22 Breivik: - No, I was not unable.

15.22 Larsen: - You did not have failure? No, ok.

15.22 Breivik: - I wrote detailed about what would happen, how it would be perceived.

15.22 Larsen: - Yes, all right.

15.22 Breivik: - But there was a point to.

15.22 Larsen: - Yes.

15.22 Breivik: - Regarding what I forgot to say today is the fact that the last two politically motivated violence committed by militant nationalists in Norway have resulted in psychiatric diagnoses.

15.23 - And that one was Hadeland murders. It was a militant nationalist who killed a Somali. As hated Muslims. He ended up in a madhouse, he chose not to fight the diagnosis. And then there was this lawyer who shot and injured a person at a reception center. As was also the right-wing. Also, he ended up in a mental hospital.

15.23 Larsen: - But now we are most concerned about you, then.

15.23 Breivik: - Yeah.

15.23 Larsen: - Yes. And you understood the question and the clarifications you came with.

15.23 Breivik: - Mm. Certainly.

15.23 Larsen - About what happened 22 July and your relationship with your actions that day.

15.23 Breivik: - Yes, I understood your question.

15.23 Larsen: - And just briefly, what was the answer? What is it, how did Breivik on 22 July compared to just this by considering their relationship to the outside world?

15.23 Breivik: - It is, I have no problem with considering my relationship to the world.

15.24 Larsen: - No. Right. Thank you.

15.24 Arntzen: - Have the experts any questions? There you go, Husby.

15.24 Expert Torgeir Husby: - Just want to first get the comment that, administrator, we will not go into the details of our privacy in the form of questions now. Because it is impossible to get, run by that kind of detail without that we have put forward terms, so we will have to come back to when we will present Declaration. But I have a couple, three small questions.

15.24 Arntzen: - Yes.

15.24 Husby: - By the way. One is, Breivik, you say that we have decided early. If it was, it's possible that you've said it before, but it's something you've come afterwards? Or was the impression you got when you were there?

15.24 Breivik: - My impression is that you have decided early.

15.24 Husby: - Yes, there was the impression you got while we were sitting there, or is it something that has come after the fact?

15.24 Breivik: (Pause). It has come after the fact.

15.24 Husby: - Uh-huh.

15.25 Breivik: - There, I understood it so when I read the report. I did not understand it, therefore, if I had suspected it while we had conversations, so I did not continue.

15.25 Husby: - The second my question was related to the five points. I will not harp on it a lot, but the five points you think are partially explanations and partially explanations as to why we should have lied 80 percent of your statement. Was it like that, I understood you correctly when you said that there was one point in the buddy list that was most likely or that you believed in, and that the other four thought you were not on. Or how was it?

15.25 Breivik: - There was one point, yes.

15.25 Husby: - It is what it is about emotional instability. So you ...

15.25 Breivik: - No, well, what I said was that I believe that the action you were too ...

15.25 Husby: - I was not quite finished with the question.

15.25 Breivik: - Yeah, right.

15.25 Husby: - Do you think you are, that is the emotional instability and incompetence, as it says there. Do you think that it's the way that our emotional instability ... Why are you smiling?

15.26 - ... that our emotional instability should be a way of explanation we then have committed 80 percent of construction exper ..., by the declaration.

15.26 - So there is an ind .., you mean that it is an individual agenda, not one, not one, what should I say, systematic or systemic agenda behind it? Thus, there is no society perspective ...

15.26 Breivik: - No, I do not think it is systemic. I think you have ..., acted naturally, that is it, you were too attached emotionally because of ...

15.26 (Not audible, speaking in chorus)

15.26 Husby: - An order form uncognitive emotional confusion, or something like that, is that what you mean?

15.26 Breivik: - Thus it is impossible to avoid media coverage of it, you're only human. And it's one that's my theory anyway.

15.26 Husby: - All right.

15.26 Breivik: - Well, the event was too closely linked to the evaluation. That's what I think.

15.27 Sørheim: - I see it still, I... So, why should it be close up in the event that you make should produce 80 percent of the declaration. So, what, what is the connection between the two?

15.27 Breivik: - What I think is that you can not comprehend that a normal person would do something like that. You thought that a person who does something so cruel, can not be normal, he must be ill. And that was the reason. You would support that conclusion. But anyway, it's, it's a, I have no evidence for it, of course. And that's why I asked you too, why you have, why I have been able to identify 200 things that are not, which is fictional, which are lies.

15.27 Husby: - Next question is short for something you said earlier today, which I'm not quite sure if I got the nuances in. You were, you were talking about percentages, and then you talked about what you call civilians. And then you said that 95, yes 98, perhaps as much as 99 percent are civilians, said. Here in place.

15.28 Breivik: - Yes, in Norway, do you think? Well, that, my point ... Yes, I'll let you talk finished.

15.28 Husby: - No, no, it was just, ie those, but you said it here before. So, you went 95, 98, 99 percent.

15.28 Breivik: - I do not say yes to that, but I'll let you go.

15.28 Husby: - And my question was really, what is there not, what are the 1-5 percent that is not civil?

15.28 Breivik: - Are you done?

15.28 Husby: - Yes.

15.28 Breivik: - What I have said is that the only thing that I consider to be legitimate targets, there are political activists who fight actively for multiculturalism. And any further, it, therefore, definition of it is not appropriate to go into.

15.28 Husby: - Yes, but you've got the traitor where your groups, right?

15.28 Breivik: - I have not done any calculations on it. The only ... I have a clear idea about it, I have not done any calculations on it. Therefore it wrong if I try to talk in percentages, when I'm not qualified to talk in percentages.

15.29 Husby: - My point was more like, for you are ready ..., surely are aware that from 95 percent to 99 percent, there is a difference of 250,000 people.

15.29 Breivik: - Yes, and it is correct what you say. That's why I'm not qualified to say exactly what, because I have not done any calculations on it. My point is that ...

15.29 Husby: - My next question was exactly what was going to happen to them? So what is, what is ... fate of these traitors or what ...?

15.29 Breivik: - No, well, what I said is that I consider political activists who work for the implementation of multiculturalism, as legitimate targets. And there's no point in trying to define it more than that.

15.30 Husby: - Do not push you on that. The last question. It's a bit like polemic set, but still meant seriously. What percentage do you think you have changed the explanation from you spoken to us in the bubble we put in when the Ila, and to this day when you're sitting here in court.

15.30 Breivik: - No, I do not ... I do not want to answer it.

15.30 Husby: - Do you think you have it? You are saying the defense question that you have customized statement, you have been through it several times.

15.30 Breivik: - I have conveyed exactly the same to you that I have conveyed to the police.

15.30 Husby: - As you convey here?

15.30 Breivik: - No, I conveyed the page. therefore all that I conveyed to you in the questioning.

15.30 Husby: - It was not what was my question. How much have you changed until you come here?

15.30 Breivik: - Ehh ... no, it's probably just some words, that I use a "network" instead of a "pan-European organization" and stuff like that. It is one of the pompous rhetoric, some words, especially adjectives, I have toned down slightly. But the content is exactly the same.

15.31 Arntzen: - Be so good, you Sørheim.?

15.31 Sørheim: - I have a few questions. It was the use of terms, also in the case. But I think that my colleague that we can not manage to enter the premises of all the issues you have raised. But the lawyer Larsen was built on the spot, with this whether you had thoughts about taking your life, that the word suicide or suicidal, which are used in psychiatric terminology. What I wish it was you with your words could explain to us the difference between the to end his life with the Norwegian word suicide versus the end of his life ... you smile?

15.31 Breivik: - Yes, I know ... you are trying to cheat me on a slippery slope.

15.31 Sørheim: - Yes, it was unintentional.

15.32 Breivik: - It is only to continue, I'll respond.

15.32 Sørheim: - I wonder what is the difference between it and taking their lives, either as self-termination or as a martyrdom?

15.32 Breivik: - I do not want to comment on it.

15.32 Sørheim: - Can you do something that helps to clarify why these concepts .. Thus, my point is well for that matter, outside set, then end it with that door, from the grip they have taken, that they shall die. In all cases, regardless of the terms used. But you explain here that this is not the same.

15.32 Breivik: - Yes, well, what you have described as ... Now I do not remember exactly what. But you described well martyrdom as suicide, and it is wrong. Because there are two completely different things. But it's really a theological debate, and then we should really gotten theological experts.

15.33 Sørheim: - Yes, I let it go with it.

15.33 Arntzen: - Tørrissen have questions?

15.33 Tørrissen: - It's just a bit like underlining, more a comment. And, now including Holden made a sentence out of the report, and it goes in the same direction as other experts here said, it is a little bit like that applied to single sentences, which we do not intend to explain the motive for what we have come until such things. And there are also some things about this Knights Templar, that we may also have a different understanding of it too. But I thought that we should educate the whole and overall when submitting the declaration, the premises that underlie what we say. That's the only comment that I felt that the sentences could be a bit detached. But I have no issues otherwise.

15.34 Arntzen: - Aspaas.

15.34 Aspaas: - Yes please. You're here in court meant that experts Husby and Sørheim have lied in their report. The question is, there is not a cross, for example, that they have considered it differently than you do? They have lied? You are not afraid that it will be taken as evidence that you are paranoid then, Breivik?

15.34 Breivik: - Yes, well, there is always a danger of it. Because, as I said in the interview as well, they have deprived me the opportunity to accuse them of using paranoid piston. And, it put me in a difficult situation. If I were to accuse them, so they could use it against me, to support its conclusion, or underline it. So it is of course.

15.34 Aspaas: - Why do you do it? You've been interested in the hil.

15.35 Breivik: - Because it's the truth. And I want that.

15.35 Aspaas: - It is the truth? You have no doubt about that?

15.35 Breivik: - No, then I rather take the risk.

15.35 Aspaas: - So, you said that Husby and Sørheim lack knowledge of politically motivated terrorism. Do you have any reason to believe that Tørrissen and I have no more knowledge about it?

15.35 Breivik: - Well, the fact that you do not think that it is delusional, indicating the knowledge that their level is higher. But that's not to say that you have great expertise in this area, no. And I think well you do not have either.

15.35 Aspaas: - And so it has been with this economic dependence. Do you have any reason to believe that Tørrissen and I am somewhat less economically reliant on behalf of the public?

15.36 Breivik: - No, I think not. And there is a theory that I do not believe. Thus, no.

15.36 Aspaas: - You mentioned a psychiatrist earlier in the day that should have supported the detention of dissidents in the Soviet Union in psychiatric institutions. It was a theme in one of the conversations we had. And when the name came up, so I remember that I said that I am a little unsure, it's a long time since it has been discussed, so I'm a little unsure of the name. Have you checked out something more about it? Or you based on what we had in the conversation?

15.36 Breivik: - There is a former editor from Aftenposten called Hegge, who has listings of all those in Norway ... the small clique that supported the use of mental hospitals against political dissidents. As the expert in the field is not really him.

15.36 Aspaas: - Yes, but have you checked out that since we talked about it?

15.37 Breivik: - Yes, I have asked my lawyer to do so. And I also asked a great many others. And I think I have evidence to say it, but ... but I'm not a hundred percent, but I'm almost a hundred percent.

15.37 Aspaas: - For when we talked about it, you had another name up there, like .. Do you remember?

15.37 Breivik: - Right, yes I remember.

15.37 Aspaas: - Can you say something about it?

15.37 Breivik: - No, it was well ..

15.37 Aspaas: - You mentioned Leo Eitinger as having supported this. Have you anything.?

15.37 Breivik: - No, it was not really one of you mentioned that name.

15.37 (Aspaas doubt that statement)

15.37 And then I made an assumption based on what turned out to be wrong.

15.37 Aspaas: - Assumption? Ok.

15.37 Breivik: - So Eitinger was not one of those who supported it.

15.38 Aspaas: - Last question, you were in the conversation that the mother had with expert Husby and Sørheim.

15.38 - Commented on any of it. At the bottom of page 81 of the statement, the first statement, it is a short paragraph which I just wonder what you think about. It is the mother who is quoted as saying: "I thought the if he was getting completely crazy, she says. And it became a major discomfort, gross and it felt unsafe, as if I did not know him anymore. So I thought there must be something wrong with your head. "Do you have any comment on that?

15.38 Breivik: - The interrogation there, you know what context it was taken, the police questioning or was it calls Husby had?

15.38 Aspaas: - No, there were talks that the experts had with the mother for information about you ...

15.38 Breivik: - As Husby had?

15.38 Aspaas: - Yes.

15.39 Breivik: - I witnessed the conversation, that is, my mother had a nervous breakdown after I was arrested. And she ended up on Diakonhjemmet, facilities Husby has access. And I do not know the exact circumstances of what happened. But the impression that I was sitting with was that he had spoken to her at a time when she was very vulnerable, and was very angry with me. And so permeated the hearing to call it that, that she really wants me to where pepper grows, and she seems very aggressive. And very exaggerated. It was my impression anyway.

15.39 Aspaas: - Thank you.

15.39 Arntzen: - Are there any of the judges who have any questions?

15.39 Professional judge Arne Lyng: - A question. And then we make a small leap back to the morning of 22 July Breivik. You explained the place that you made your food in the morning. Can you remember what day you made?

15.40 Breivik: - I made baguettes with ham and cheese.

15.40 Lyng: - How was your appetite during breakfast?

15.40 Breivik: - It was completely normal. No, it is both wrong to say that. I do not remember, but I remember that I ate.

15.40 Lyng: - As told you in the place that you also made packed lunch. Did you eat this lunch box during the day?

15.40 Breivik: - No, I did not. The plan was to eat it before I came to Utøya, but I drank a redbull instead.

15.40 Lyng: - Thank you.

15.40 Arntzen: - I have a question or a few questions. You frequently use the word pompous, it is perhaps the word that you have used most during the negotiations here so far. When did you start using that word?

15.41 Breivik: - I do not remember.

15.41 Arntzen: - Is there a word you have used any of the experts?

15.41 Breivik: - It is a word that appeared in the police interview, maybe a little less than a month before the first report was published.

15.41 Arntzen: - Ok, so this was a word first used in police interrogations, about a month before the first report?

15.41 Breivik: - Yeah, right. I seem to remember that, yes.

15.41 Arntzen: - Yes, well. And I have a question for what you have said ...

15.41 Breivik: - You may be I'm wrong, but I believe it.

15.41 Arntzen: - Okay. So it's not a word you've started to use in court, you have used it before?

15.41 Breivik: - No, I've used it before.

15.42 Arntzen: - Yes, all right. Then there is a on page 211 in the last statement. There you have explained to you in conversation with the expert Aspaas. And when you are asked if uniform and prompted the title Justiciar Knight. And at first, you say that it is a draft. And Justiciar Knight, you say that this is a title that you have created. But as you say when it comes KT network, as you say, it says here: - He stressed, however, that those individuals who he has described in KT really exist.

15.42 - Also you say: - Whether police have managed to identify them or not. Also go to: - He should have used other words KT introduction, said that it was about a few individuals who wanted to associate themselves with KTs identity. And that's the last words I would like you commenting. What does that mean, the last sentence, that there were people who wanted to associate themselves. Are you misquoted?

15.43 Breivik: - Well, I've talked about six individuals associated with the KT network. And they are affiliated with the KT network.

15.43 Arntzen: - For what you are quoted here and there that are taken when necessary can be recorded on tape, it is that in the case of a few individuals who wanted to associate themselves with KTs identity. And then my question is were they associated with, or was it the desire to connect with something? And if so, who was it who made this something?

15.43 Breivik: - They were connected, there was no desire for it.

15.43 Holden: - Judge, and others for others too, just for information. With a search in the database interrogation of pompous, it is the first time we get a hit 08.31, a questioning of 1 March 2012.

15.44 Breivik: 1 March 2012?

15.44 Holden: - Until then the word pompous is not mentioned in interviews.

15.44 Breivik: - It can not be.

15.44 Holden: - I ask those behind taking a double check, so ...

15.44 Breivik: - It can not, really. So then you need to check again.

15.44 Holden: - Then I ask them to do it.

15.44 Arntzen: - When we come back to it. So it is something that is also featured in one of the reports, or possibly both, I do not remember, but it was with spiders on Vålstua farm. Can you tell us about what the problem was?

15.44 Breivik: - There was a problem with spiders there, but there were very many trebiller there in the kitchen. And then, I know I'm not, at first so I just ignored them, but then they climbed up in different places.

15.45 - And then I started killing them. And then I killed maybe 60-70 pieces total. The night was very favorable. And the problem was that I worked very much on the night there, so they were a big problem. But it was well just in the part of the year where they were, where they bred or something. It was certainly very many of those. And I told police exactly where I threw all of these so they can locate the ones I refer to if they wish. But spiders were never a problem.

15.45 Arntzen: - So, I have one last question. It related to a formulation also has used several times, and it is that what you did at Utøya and in and of itself, it may also be that it also includes what you did in the government quarter, that it is contrary to human nature.

15.46 - And then there's our question here, what made you able to perform actions contrary to human nature? And in a situation where you were all alone. Also, we have heard very much about your ideology and A, B and C traitors and so on, so it's not that I invite you. We also heard about meditation. But I would like you to try to explain to us the purely subjective assumptions that you managed to do this?

15.46 Breivik: - So it goes on the very many levels, it goes on the ideological, justification, and so it goes on perhaps the documentation of the ULEV injustice, not just documentation, but also the actual realities of the Norwegian society so it goes on the preparations you make where you know you're going to do heinous acts. So when you have to prepare to be able to function under certain circumstances, it does, for example, by looking at the dreadful images, for example, and be able to, try to visualize what is going on. (Unclear party where Breivik and Arntzen talking on top of each other).

15.47 Arntzen: - You saw the dreadful images, it was part of your training?

15.47 Breivik: - It was part of my training.

15.47 Arntzen: - Where did you find those pictures?

15.47 Breivik: - There were pictures attached genocide or conflict, or bloody conflicts in the world. Including Serbia.

15.47 Arntzen: - Was there any such images on the Internet, that those games that you played, they had that kind of pictures?

15.47 Breivik: - No, not at all. But then it went on everything from the use of chemicals as well, steroids and ECA it works in this context also that part of it. It is a package that includes one embraces very many factors and chemicals is one of those. So there are very many factors. And there is something you must take seriously if we are to have any chance to implement it.

15.48 Arntzen: - Yes, I guess it's an additional question from Judge Wisløff.

15.48 Lay judge Anne Elisabeth Wisløff: - My question it just went on the last topic with chemicals the impact it had on you for it has so far, it has not been touched at all. But it's going well, but now it's the answer, so I looked.

15.48 Arntzen: - There are many who want to ask questions so I open it, and I think I'm well first judges, Nielsen.

15.48 Lay judge Ernst Nielsen: - I have a question for what happened on 22 July. When you run craftern up Grubbegata, when you park it when you are photographed, you know these security cameras, and we have seen it. What do you think would have happened if you had backed craftern out and run away?

15.49 Breivik: - I had been arrested.

15.49 Nielsen: - Because you were observed with a bomb in the back seat?

15.49 Breivik: - Yes, I think probably they had seen police uniform Also here, the cameras.

15.49 Nielsen: - Does it in any way influenced your decision to continue the campaign?

15.49 Breivik: - has enough. It's like, that one, there is a process to start and that is a way to finish even driving. For you know that it's too late to turn back anyway.

15.49 Nielsen: - Should I interpret it to mean then that it had driven into craftern with police uniform as you were seen, and then there was no point in turning you would have already identified yourself, the way you think ?

15.50 Breivik: - Uh, yes, in many ways, that you will probably, you can always turn around, but it makes enough of a role.

15.50 Nielsen: - But your assessment then, if you had turned. You consider it likely that you would have ended up in jail, is that it?

15.50 Breivik: - You'd ended up in jail, yes.

15.50 Nielsen: - Thank you.

15.50 Arntzen: - As the ref is on my left side.

15.50 Lay judge Diana Patricia Fynbo: - You have previously used the word indoctrination in mind that other people have been indoctrinated, I wonder if you could explain what you mean by this term?

15.50 Breivik: - indoctrination, er, compromising on the programming in a way, it's another word for programming. And you, in English called the condition, that one renders a person or an individual to think and have certain beliefs, it can mean several things, but in the setting then it's the meaning.

15.51 Fynbo: - So one more question. Have you used himself as an experiment?

15.51 Breivik: - To a certain extent. But what are you referring to exactly? I do not know if you and I are thinking the same thing.

15.51 Fynbo: - As you can tell what you mean by an experiment first.

15.51 Breivik: - No, I think probably that many of the processes that I conducted was experimental, that they had not been tried before. So there were some traditions that were obtained which are also really, there is no guarantee that other militant nationalists in Europe adopt some of the, some of the things that I tried to introduce, as it is experimental in that respect, but time will tell. But what were you thinking?

15.52 Fynbo: - Yes, thank you as I have found the answer to what I was wondering.

15.52 Breivik: - Okay.

15.52 Arntzen: - Husby, you had a question.

15.52 Husby: - It is the continuation of the administrators questions about pompousness. It has been going on, you have a little black on it or anything about it, but I have two questions related to it. One is your opinion. What was the reason you were as pompous, why did you or would you or whatever it is that is the background, being pompous, maybe then if you think specifically detectable by 22.7, maybe even before? And the second question is, when, that is, if we disregard the time and so, in what way did you start to notice that you had been pompous, or needed to moderate slightly pompousness, if I may put it that way.

15.53 Breivik: - That's a good question. Part of the reason was well that I wanted to use the forensic psychiatric report as, what to say, the source of propaganda. Because I thought that it would be leaked. And the more detailed I described the KT network, the more propaganda (inaudible).

15.53 Husby - You would use our report, that psychiatric report as political propaganda? Is that what you're saying?

15.53 Breivik: - No, well, I knew that it would be passed, and in that context I thought that maybe it would be interesting to at least specify what was described in the compendium as detailed as possible. And in that context, I thought the marketing context, I thought it was strategically correct to do. But then it turned out that it was wrong to do. It was ...

15.53 Husby: - But without having to go to dispute with you about it, so I do not perceive it as a form of pompousness. For pompousness seems the more like something that would be somewhat exaggerated, but what you describe is now more detailed explanation of what the KT network is?

15.54 Breivik: - Yes, but the explanation which I presented to you, and the police in the beginning, so I chose a very pompous presentation because I saw it as a marketing opportunity. And ...

15.54 Husby: - When was it when you started any sign that pompousness was not ...

15.54 Breivik: - That I found ... So, I come to the conclusion that even when, a month before the report came.

15.54 Husby: - How did that realization?

15.54 Breivik: - It came well, I do not know. I do not remember the circumstances of it, but it's ...

15.54 Husby: - Yes, it was an event, do you think, or was it one of those supposedly recognition that pompousness no longer appropriate?

15.55 Breivik: - I do not know, but it described the circumstances in police interrogations, so if one goes back to the point where I pass it a little less pompous, so you will know exactly the circumstances.

15.55 Husby: - Thank you.

15.55 Arntzen: - Holden, you had a question?

15.55 Holden: - Yes. First of all, we took a double check on the word pompous, and it's probably the first time in recorded interrogations 1 March. However, there is a hit on the first occurrence of gloss image, 18 October 2011, so it is stressed.

15.55 - But just one last thing on my part. I have been informed that the 25 cabinet ministers survived the 22 war. Again Riisnæs was placed in a psychiatric hospital, the rest were executed, imprisoned, were fined or forced labor. In other words, everyone got judgments.

15.55 Breivik: - I know of at least one of which ... so you believe it, it's your claim?

15.55 Holden: - Mm.

15.56 Breivik: - Who is the source of it?

15.56 Holden: - The source is some historians, and it is and Norwegian Encyclopedia, Norwegian war lexicon.

15.56 - What do you think about that?

15.56 Breivik: - No, then I will have to check with my source, but I heard something completely different. But I am aware that this is unknown to very many, and those who have written about it have not described it. So it's not really unknown that respect.

15.56 Holden: - Is this a form of propaganda, misinformation from the government?

15.56 Breivik: - It may be so, but I do not know. I must do more research on it.

15.56 Holden: - Thank you.

15.56 Engh: - Just a bit of an extension of what you got questions about the place. When you start to be questioned by the police. So you sit in long, long, long interrogations, right?

15.57 - Yes, and you begin to tell the KT network and why you have done what you have done.

15.57 - How do you find those interviewing you, they have no reaction to what they tell? Do you get any impression about what you said about the KT network, if they think it is odd, or if they think it's okay, you form a picture of it along the way?

15.57 Breivik: - It does you know.

15.57 Engh: - Yes, what kind of impression did you get that?

15.57 Breivik: - No, well, I think both police from the outset meant that, on the basis that they have not been able to identify other people, they think that there are other people.

15.57 Engh: - Surprised that you, the reaction you have gotten what you have written in the manifesto? So, you set the home and wrote it, also this comes out after 22 July. Are you surprised at how ...?

15.57 Breivik: - No, not at all. It is expected.

15.58 Engh: - Had you predicted it when you sat and wrote, thought, that this people are going to think is absolutely crazy?

15.58 Breivik: - Well, first of all, it's not public, it is a very small group of radical individuals. And if you think that it is to the public, so it seems the whole crazy, but ...

15.58 Engh: - But this small group that you would reach out to, then. Did you have any thoughts they would consider it crazy?

15.58 Breivik: - Well, it's so large document. And there are so many themes, some of the topics are of course crazy. Or are perceived as crazy, because it is too radical. But it is important to distinguish irrationality and radicalism. So why is it a little wrong of you to use the word crazy.

15.58 Engh: - Yeah, okay, okay.

15.58 Breivik: - But there is much that is very extreme there.

15.58 Engh: - Well, then, however. Thank you.

15.59 Breivik: - But I have a comment for you as well. Because that previous to this picture that was shown to me by the logo that read Marxist hunter ...

15.59 Engh: - Yes, you're thinking when we went through what you had on you at Utøya?

15.59 Breivik: - Votes. You claimed that it was manipulated into, but it was not. It was a physical piece that I placed on the arm.

15.59 Engh: - Yeah, okay, so you think you had it on your arm while you walked around there?

15.59 Breivik: - Yes, well, when the picture was taken, so, it is not something that is manipulated in the image.

15.59 Engh: - No, you would have marked you?

15.59 - But at Utøya, then?

15.59 Breivik: - I did not go with the brand on Utøya.

15.59 Engh: - No.

15.59 Breivik: - But another thing too.

15.59 - According to you, I have lived in Fearnley Street. But I have never stayed in Fearnley Street. I have not lived in ...

16.00 Engh: - No, I saw you reacted to it, then it may be that we are wrong and we'll check it out. I got nothing ...

16.00 Breivik: - I have only lived in Tidemands Street and Marie Street.

16.00 Engh: - Okay.

16.00 Arntzen: - Yes, now approaching the 16 o'clock and I've got two questions, and we set the bar for it. First, it defends Hein Bæra, here you go.

16.00 Bæra: - Yes, thank you. So it is just a follow-up when he used the word pompous, that a follow-up of the judge's questions. And there showed Holden quite properly document we also found here, doc. 08.17, 18.10, where he uses the word gloss image. And there on page four, as you say, and I want this to be a bit precisely - As I kind of have described the Knights Templar, then it is a glossy picture of the Knights Templar, Knights Templar but is in practice being established . And then my question to you, Breivik. What is the difference between the use of the word glossy picture and pompous?

16.01 Breivik: - It is exactly the same word.

16.01 Bæra: - Yes, thank you. And then it was just a small clarification to, and that is that, in the enormous number of interviews that are done, it's in the documents only short excerpts of the conversations that have taken place. Interrogations have been from an estimated ten and twelve hours, and it's shrunk down to between 40 and 60 documents, or pages per session. So it's quite possible that the word is used, the word pompous, used previously without coming in document excerpts. Thank you.

16.01 Arntzen: - It was the last question from the expert Sørheim.

16.01 Sørheim: - Yes, this is a collection from the 19th When you were also built on the expert statements. And then bet I noticed that you mentioned that Sørheim and Husby in his declaration was adopted trusted or believed that you were in Liberia. And then my question to you, where did you read that?

16.01 Breivik: - Once, when I said that?

16.01 Sørheim: - You said that on the 19th, that here in court on the 19th.

16.02 Breivik: - Okay. I have not really, conclusions ..., rattled off a number of points in the written chronicle that I have conveyed, but it may well vote that you have never ... I do not think I've described it before.

16.02 Sørheim: - No, over here in court, you mean? The 19 For when you said it definitely.

16.02 Breivik: - Well, I remember we talked about it. But you thought the not that I had met someone down there. And you probably thought nor that I had been in Liberia.

16.02 Sørheim: - And then my question to you, how in the declaration have you read it?

16.02 Breivik: - I do not think it says in the statement at all. That was something I said I thought.

16.02 Sørheim: - Okay. Thank you.

16.02 Arntzen: - Yes, it's four o'clock and the court day has ended. Court is adjourned.