Transcripts‎ > ‎

Anders Behring Breivik Court Transcript 2012-06-12 Live Report

Tuesday June 12 2012


8:46 Good morning from Oslo Courthouse. 09 The time is right for day 35 of the trial after the July 22 attacks.

8:47 Five witnesses will now be in court on schedule. The first witness at 09 is Randi Rosenqvist.

8:56 Randi Rosenqvist is a former chairman of RMK and have talked with Anders Breivik Behring at Ila. She has previously stated that she doesn't believe Breivik to be psychotic.

8:59 The actors are in place in courtroom 250 and the defendant is entered.

9:00 The court is set.

9:00 At Christmas, Rosenqvist expressed concern that the Husby and Sørheim had not seen for other diagnoses:

9:01 The court administrator, Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen, ask Randi Rosenqvist give assurance to the court. She currently works at Ila Prison.

9:01 She is exempt from confidentiality.

9:02 Arntzen states of Randi Rosenqvists certificates can not be broadcast, which is consistent with the Court's earlier decision.

9:03 Randi Rosenqvist is the prosecution witness.

9:04 Prosecutors Svein Holden: - We will strive to be fairly brief.

9:05 Holden asks that Rosenqvist account of his vocational background.

9:06 Rosenqvist has worked for about 35 years in psychiatry and has served as president of the Forensic Medicine.

9:08 Rosenqvist: - I would like to start with 23 July. My first thought was that it was too much planning and logistics that there was a psychotic functioning in person.

9:08 Holden: - The three notes you have made, is contained in court documents.

9:10 Rosenqvists task has been commissioned by the director of Ila to conduct a risk assessment related to Breivik's stay in prison.

9:10 Holden said the court in which the notes are in the documents.

9:13 Arntzen: - Can you say more about the extent of what he wrote on

9:14 Rosenqvist: - I understood him him as a narcissistic personality with grandiose ideas, and found no information that he had a psychotic assessment in August.

9:16 Holden: - You indicated something about security. Can you suggest how security works in this phase?

9:16 Rosenqvist read from his notes, where it appears that Breivik feared harsher treatment in prison, including water torture.

9:17 Rosenqvist explains security in isolation ward, where it was made with a glass wall for the visitors' Breivik.

9:17 Holden: - How is the situation today? If you have stepped down?

9:17 Rosenqvist: - No.

9:18 Rosenqvist: - He has gotten quite a lot of activities, and had a police interrogation and defenders back. I perceived it as a problem that he was isolated.

9:19 Rosenqvist: - I made an assessment of the director of the Ila where it said that he was not suicidal.

9:20 Rosenqvist says she had Asperger associations of Breivik's use of numbers, as Breivik quantified as a percentage of his life spark.

9:21 Holden: - Breivik has written 86 posts on 10 of the posts were moderated by the website.

9:22 Rosenqvist: - In October, the director would have an update of the note I wrote in August. I said I would not have it until I talked to the Breivik.

9:22 Rosenqvist: - I had a conversation with Breivik 1 november. According to the log Breivik had behaved quite strikingly.

9:23 Rosenqvist: - He has shown that he can see himself from outside.

9:24 Holden: - How would you describe his behavior as compared with other inmates?

9:26 Rosenqvist: - His behavior has been exemplary.

9:27 Rosenqvist says Breivik joked that he could hardly get a chemistry set in the cell.

9:28 Rosenqvist: - He says he had 15,000 of study behind him before he came to Ila.

9:28 Rosenqvist account of his conversations with Breivik.

9:29 Rosenqvist: - He said he was several years ago had seen it as his mission to save Europe.

9:30 Holden: - You mentioned that he had received an authorization for surgery. Did he tell you anything about what or whom he derived authority from?

9:30 Rosenqvist: - No, we talked for an hour.

9:30 Rosenqvist: - I can not say with certainty that he has not said anything about this, but I have not recorded it.

9:30 Holden: - You have written him several years ago saw it as his mission to save Europe. This number of years ago. Did you get any closer to the time description?

9:31 Rosenqvist: - No, I do not think so, but that he had been concerned about this for several years.

9:31 Holden: - The statement that he considered it his mission to save Europe. Was it explained?

9:31 Rosenqvist: - We talked a bit about it, and I think it's pretty violent, what he thought. My assessment was that this was not a psychotic delusion, but grandiosity.

9:31 Holden: - Is it possible to elaborate elements of the assessment?

9:33 Rosenqvist: - I did not suspect that this would be called psychotic. But it was distinctive and extremely ... I did not see this as any worse than some other statements.

9:34 Rosenqvist draws parallels to the perception of reality that can be found among sect members, and extreme reality.

9:37 Holden: - Is there any knowledge of how to determine if you are one or the other place?

9:37 Rosenqvist: - I do not believe it, it will be an assessment of the validity of statements and statements. What I have emphasized the rigidity of such performances.

9:38 Rosenqvist: - I thought at the time that he found himself within a social structure where there were more who thought like him.

9:38 Rosenqvist: - My impression was that he had had contact with peers in England.

9:38 Holden: - Gave him the sosisle structure in a name?

9:39 Rosenqvist: - Ask about the Knights Templar? He built much of the English environment, but can not remember if he said KT or not.

9:41 Rosenqvist says she perceived as such Breivik "nailed" in his understanding that he would not be suicidal, but rather excited or storhetsgal.

9:42 Rosenqvist: - It was quite interesting to see how keen he was to commit to contact me.

9:43 Rosenqvist: - I noticed that he was keen to learn the employee's name, and I thought that this could be abused.

9:44 Rosenqvist says Breivik worked as a salesman, and warned employees Ila against being manipulated by Breivik.

9:46 Rosenqvist: I was very surprised when the forensic psychiatric statement came.

9:47 Rosenqvist: - I tried out the extent to which his peculiar notions had a psychotic rank.

9:48 Rosenqvist: - I spoke to him on the statement, he said that it was only 10-20 per cent that was true.

9:48 Rosenqvist: - He was the conclusion almost humorous.

9:50 Rosenqvist account of what she describes as Breivks "weird beliefs".

9:50 Rosenqvist: - He was concerned that he was not racist or national socialist.

9:52 Holden: - Thinking about his answer to you would be characterized by the fact that he knew the contents of the first statement?

9:52 Rosenqvist says Breivik said he was just one of many "militant foot soldiers", Breivik told her also about his travels to London and Liberia.

9:53 Rosenqvist: - I find it unlikely that if he had been psychotic, by reading the statement, would dissimulere a psychosis. He tried to adapt to me.

9:54 Holden: - Do you know if the concept of Knights Templar were used in the call number two?

9:54 Rosenqvist: - I was not qualified to know whether this was true. He insisted that this was the truth.

9:55 Rosenqvist: - He went on to say that it was immoral to do nothing, with the danger that Europe faced.

9:57 Rosenqvist says Breivik not angered that she believed Breivik lied.

9:58 Rosenqvist reads from his notes after meetings with Breivik.

9:58 Rosenqvist: - He talked too much that he would hold back delusions.

9:59 Rosenqvist: - I saw no reason to change the prison's handling of him.

9:59 Rosenqvist says she believes that Breivik has built its project on lies.

10:00 Holden: - Is it true that psychotic people must have decreased cognitive functions?

10:01 Rosenqvist: - No, but when people have a lot of symptoms, it will go beyond the general thinking ability.

10:02 Rosenqvist: - The active psychotic is that you are not thinking logically. One has difficulty processing information.

10:02 Holden: - Is there any difference between paranoid schizophrenic and paranoid psychotic?

10:02 Rosenqvist: - I would think that the psychotic will have a better cognitive function.

10:03 Rosenqvist: - When you are really ill, the ability to process information diminished.

10:05 Rosenqvist says that she is in conversation with Breivik ga clear that she thought would get pressure Breivik 1:38-page feature article.

10:06 Holden: - Is there anything grandiose about it in the psychiatric sense?

10:06 Rosenqvist: - Yes, of course.

10:06 Holden: - What was the result of this meeting?

10:07 Rosenqvist: - He had ascertained that I was not mad at Lippestad.

10:07 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - You said that he had said he was afraid of being subjected to waterboarding. What is it?

10:07 Engh: - Did he believe that Ila was going to do it with him?

10:07 Rosenqvist: - This is not my specialty. It is a kind of tilting, and the head is dipped into a bucket of water.

10:08 Rosenqvist: - Yes, he thought he was the national enemy number one, and that laws and regulations did not apply. But he was quick reality orientation.

10:09 Engh: - You were built to belong to a sect. What mechanisms are set in a cult? Why are they more?

10:09 Rosenqvist: - They wanted to meet like-minded users, and the more contact they have with each other, the more certain one is that it's the way it is.

10:10 Engh: - How would you rate it compared to just one person?

10:10 Rosenqvist: - If the delusion is something that a person has, it is. But it does not apply when there are more.

10:11 Rosenqvist: - Knights Templar may be a delusion, but what kind of delusion? Wishful thinking, a psychotic delusion? We have a Norwegian expression that says "you lying then you believe in it themselves."

10:12 Engh: - In considering whether it is a delusion. Will the degree of conviction to be relevant? If you act on your conviction?

10:12 Rosenqvist: - It is difficult to test the degree of conviction. Many shop constructed beliefs.

10:13 Engh: - Did you go into his right to kill?

10:13 Rosenqvist: - He says that he is the pragmatist, the sacrifice he has made is small.

10:14 Engh: - Do you have any explanation for why he thinks the thought that someone who he meets after 22 July you like him?

10:14 Rosenqvist: - He knows clearly that I am conservative bourgeois ...

10:15 Engh: - If you assume that a person has a delusion. For that is it the truth? Will the person within the delusion could act rasjonellt?

10:16 Rosenqvist: - If you think you could save Europe by killing 77 people, there are such considerations as the generals do all the time. Terrorist groups believe that the more they are going to achieve anything through terror.

10:18 The participants are discussing whether to take a break.

10:18 The court does not break.

10:19 Defender Geir Lippestad: - Can you tell us about working with health management at Ila?

10:19 Rosenqvist: - There is little collaboration with the multidisciplinary team. Health Team will advise if a person must be admitted, or they think a person is suicidal.

10:20 Lippestad: - Is it right for me understand that when you say you and your team, and health management who has followed him into making independent assessments?

10:20 Rosenqvist: - Absolutely.

10:21 Lippestad: - Your team of three psychologists, they put him?

10:21 Rosenqvist: - One of my psychologists have supervised staff of the Department G.

10:21 Lippestad: - You mentioned that when Breivik spoke about the life spark, so it as a kind of bargaining chip. Can you elaborate on this?

10:22 Rosenqvist: - I was in doubt. This is to set the spark of life in percent and curves gives me thoughts about Asperger disorder. On the other hand, we saw that Breivik the first few weeks were probing.

10:23 Rosenqvist: - The figures assessment with the spark of life was really nonsense.

10:23 Lippestad: - I think the negotiation situation Breivik maybe tried to get in. He also negotiated with the police. Are you somewhat familiar with the tactics he used to negotiate a PC?

10:23 Rosenqvist: - No.

10:24 Lippestad: - You put emphasis on history as a department manager wrote about how the day goes Breivik. What knowledge and departments, the employees?

10:25 Rosenqvist: - Employees at Ila has largely prison education, some environmental therapist education. Department of dept G has long prison background, and I see that the staff is pretty good at describing the prisoners' behavior.

10:25 Lippestad: - Was there anything in history that made you concerned about the psychosis?

10:26 Rosenqvist: - That's what it was. Employees have seen quite a few crazy inmates.

10:26 Lippestad: - We have two different reports with different conclusions. Have you formed any thoughts on why it is possible to be so disagree?

10:27 Lippestad: - What do you think about methodology use around the two reports?

10:27 Rosenqvist: - He may have appeared different when he was considered, it should have been used different methodology, but I will not speculate.

10:28 Rosenqvist: - I assume that both are built to the same, and that we have interpreted differently.

10:28 Lippestad: - The observation that the past had access to experts. How important is it to make a judgment about a person is psychotic or not?

10:29 Rosenqvist: - It will provide a better mapping. To see how you behave in many situations, better information than just through conversations.

10:29 Lippestad: - Handlingens character, what significance does it have to make a diagnosis. We know he has killed 77 people in a very brutal manner. Does this have significance for determining the diagnosis?

10:31 Rosenqvist: - Of course it has meaning. I think that the terrorist acts are extremely divergent from the Norwegian culture, but this makes the terrorist groups. Naturally, it is bizarre that a man from Oslo West does something like that, but I can not use that as a result.

10:31 Lippestad: - You were in this bubble. This confirms that one apart. Breivik have not been in a traditional group. The effect of he has been on sites where attitudes are confirmed. Can you collect social ammunition there?

10:32 Rosenqvist: - There can be absolutely certain. Now I do not know about Breivik only have outbound lines.

10:32 Lippestad: - Empathy. Have you, in your conversations recorded this?

10:33 Rosenqvist: - He has talked little about his family, and was keen to show that he has empathy. I was really amazed that he would be "bonded" to me.

10:33 Lippestad: - You mentioned that Breivik wanted to talk with you to apologize for a letter that had wrong information from my side. Did you watch the empathy?

10:33 Rosenqvist: - It was in his own interest, that I was not sour.

10:34 Lippestad: - We have spent much time at the Knights Templar. For assessment of paranoid schizophrenic delusion. How is the delusion against a psychosis?

10:35 Lippestad: - If he moderates himself?

10:35 Rosenqvist: - When I find it less likely. Then the desire to parent is there.

10:36 Arntzen: - To adapt because it is opportune, it is urforenlig with a psychotic delusion?

10:36 Rosenqvist: - Do not incompatible, but less likely. The stronger delusion is, the harder it is to quit.

10:37 Lippestad: - Your assessment that you wrote 20 December that there is no psychosis. It is fixed?

10:37 Rosenqvist: - I have not found evidence of psychosis at these times.

10:38 Lawyer Frode Elgesem: - This is because the action itself can not be taken as evidence for a psychosis. Why not?

10:39 Rosenqvist: - It is an assessment that is more a social assessment. Quite a few have over the years found reason to do terrorist acts, it has never been a question of psychosis.

10:39 Elgesem: - What are the motivations, one can imagine that is driving this action?

10:40 Rosenqvist: - Conspiracy theories, power struggle ... What we have seen in Europe since 2 World War II have been people who do this.

10:40 Elgesem: - How likely is it that he has had the kind of motivation?

10:40 Rosenqvist: - He has said that it was necessary to save Europe.

10:40 Elgesem: - The action can be interesting to determine whether there is a psychosis?

10:41 Rosenqvist: - If you are actively psychotic, one can not carry long-term planning.

10:41 Elgesem: - In relation to the action. Our question is whether he was psychotic at the time of action. Is it likely that he was psychotic 22 July?

10:42 Rosenqvist: - I can not exclude it, but think that his situation in May to July was pretty extreme. A transient psychotic disorder? I do not know enough, but can not exclude it.

10:43 Elgesem: - The question of KT exists or not and if he met people in London and Liberia. Is it essential?

10:43 Rosenqvist: - It is a theme. I do not think KT is the decisive factor here, it's something we'll never know with absolute certainty.

10:44 Elgesem: - What is the reason that the allegations surrounding the medialekkasjoner Breivik not psychotic?

10:45 Rosenqvist: - He reviews the truth and twist a little on it.

10:45 Elgesem: - Do you feel that he is manipulative?

10:46 Rosenqvist: - If he is so concerned about his own, he believes that those around him feel the same, there may be an unconscious manipulation.

10:46 Elgesem: - Have you experienced other such situations?

10:46 Rosenqvist: - There is a limit to how much I've explored by him.

10:47 Elgesem: - Waterboarding-his mind was no evidence of psychosis?

10:47 Rosenqvist: - I think he's been pretty immersed in war games and Guantanamo.

10:48 Elgesem: - does he think today that there is waterboarding in Norwegian prisons?

10:48 Rosenqvist: - I can not imagine.

10:48 Elgesem: - It is recorded neologisms. Your experience as rettsspsykiater. How should one proceed until you come to a conclusion?

10:49 Rosenqvist: - The way I perceive the neologisms, the meaningless words. When you get the feeling that there may be delusions or reorganization must be explored context, one must see what they read.

10:50 Elgesem: - You said that the medical diagnosis of psychosis is not necessarily sufficient to ensure that any legal is insane?

10:51 Rosenqvist: - I was in the Criminal Code of the Commission's committees and reviewed the theory. Historically, the courts have dealt with manic psychosis, which has been short-lived. We in the Commission wrote that it was not any psychosis that would be a criminal-free, and that they had graded. However, this clarification was dropped off Justidepartementet.

10:54 Rosenqvist: - To a large extent, it is the forensic commission that since 2002 has had the task of enforcing this.

10:54 Elgesem: - In your time of the commission, it was so that he had some strength in the psychosis of being insane?

10:56 Rosenqvist go into causality, and how one must be without the ability (or severely impaired ability) to have a realistic assessment of the outside world.

10:57 Elgesem: - If there is doubt about the sanity, it may be due to impunity. If we get a judgment that he be referred to psychiatric treatment, he will then go over to the treatment regimen in prison?

10:57 Rosenqvist: - In principle, he was transferred to psychiatry. It is the current process at any time comes with a recommendation.

10:59 Elgesem: - Is there a risk that he transferred to forced mental health care without any diagnosis and whether there is an advantage for him?

10:59 Rosenqvist laughs before answering: - It is a philosophical question.

10:59 Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: - Can you briefly say what you have been doing when it comes to Penal Code Section 44?

11:00 Rosenqvist explains his background and experience from their work.

11:00 Larsen read from Proposition in connection with the criminal law section 44

11:01 Larsen: - What is the Commission must stay within?

11:01 Penal Code section 44 provides: "The action at the time was psychotic or unconscious shall not be punishable. The same applies to the time the action was mentally retarded very much."

11:02 Rosenqvist: - In the commission I thought it was important that the experts who have been closest observanden have the best sensing on how sick he is.

11:03 Larsen: - Is there anything from jail log and something you have information you have received showing that he had lost control of emotions and thoughts?

11:04 Rosenqvist: - He seemed very controlled, but from history we have interpreted him as psychotic.

11:04 Larsen: - Prison doctor's assessment. What can you say about that?

11:04 Rosenqvist: - He has very extensive experience with people who behave strangely.

11:05 Larsen: - The Commission's responsibilities. What to do when it receives a conclusion that says one is criminally insane?

11:06 Larsen: - Will they be when they go into the quality assurance that they agree that he is insane?

11:06 Rosenqvist explains how the Commission sees the symptoms that are found in the medical assessments. - The Commission can not ensure that the premises is taken in, is correct.

11:07 Larsen: - When two psychiatrists concluded that he was insane, the Commission is not in the premise basis?

11:07 Rosenqvist: - The Commission must see if there is agreement in fact and interpretation.

11:08 Larsen: - What are the challenges RMK when you get two reviews with the opposite conclusion?

11:08 Rosenqvist: - It is a complicated procedure. It has not tradition, this happens relatively rarely.

11:09 Larsen: - How can there be two different conclusions, that one of the set fault diagnosis? Are there any methods that may be preferred to not make mistakes?

11:09 Rosenqvist: - Physical examination is essential. The information is probably interpreted in various ways.

11:10 Larsen: - The first two have done all the work together, except the last call. The last two have worked individually and also had an observation.

11:10 Rosenqvist: - I think that when the court appointed two experts, it is important that they make different assessments.

11:11 Rosenqvist: - You should have conversations with observanden independently.

11:11 Larsen: - What did you mean by that you would like to be stuck with the early ideas you have?

11:11 Rosenqvist: - There is something everybody knows.

11:12 Larsen: - Possible only I must have it with a teaspoon: paranoid schizophrenia or paranoid psychosis are not found after he came to Ila?

11:12 Rosenqvist: - I have not found any reason for it, but I have stressed that I know too little about how he was this summer. There was no suspicion of psychosis when he was received at Ila.

11:12 The experts did not question.

11:13 Judge Arntzen: - You mentioned that you were with the sanction committee. Was it you who wrote it says?

11:14 Rosenqvist: - No, it was Professor Eitinger, but we agreed on everything, we sat there.

11:14 Arntzen: - You have mentioned that you may have a medical concept and a legal term?

11:16 Rosenqvist explains the history of law and psychiatry in Norway, and the need to make clarifications about the criminal psychosis.

11:18 Arntzen asked whether the change of the classification of mental disorders - Was thresholds higher or lower with impunity?

11:19 Rosenqvist: - We did not have many diagnostic categories then.

11:19 Arntzen: - Did you at that time that if you were outside the bright core could fall under Article 56 c?

11:20 Rosenqvist: - Yes, some were just on the border. These, we wanted the court to take an assessment, not the experts.

11:20 Penal Code Section 56: The court may reduce the sentence below the low point that is (...) c when the offender at the time the action had a serious mental disorder with a significantly impaired ability to realistic assessment of its relationship with the outside world, but was not psychotic, see . § 44, or were mentally retarded or acted under a strong disturbance of consciousness that was not a result of self-intoxication.

11:21 Arntzen: - If you have been aware of the degree of RMK?

11:21 Rosenqvist: - Yes, I meant that one must be really sick, not only have a disease.

11:22 Rosenqvist: - We require that there must be a diagnosis to know how the experts had thought.

11:23 Arntzen: - Did you believed that he was psychotic in the diagnostic sense, but not in a legal sense?

11:23 Rosenqvist: - Yes.

11:24 Rosenqvist leave the courtroom while Breivik to comment on her testimony.

11:24 Breivik: - I am glad that Rosenqvist confirm that I am not insane.

11:25 Breivik: - This waterboarding. To a large extent it was in jest. It was not because I thought because it existed in Norway. I was aware that it did not exist 23 July.

11:26 Breivik: - When it comes to the authority to carry out the operation, it is not an authorization of an organization but which all revolutionary uses in one form or another because they are justified.

11:27 Breivik: - When Che and Castro taking over Cuba, they had their own legitimizing of the match. Militant nationalists have another legitimation.

11:27 Breivik: - I have from the beginning said that the KT network is not large. I said that I had contact with six people from KT.

11:28 Breivik - I hope Rosenqvist would not raise the issue of Ila, where she thinks I have accused her of having leaked media information. What happened was that I communicated with her and more, and there was some information I picked up and read between the lines. There I passed my lawyer, he has written a letter to Ila.

11:29 Breivik: - I tried to avert the extremely kleine situation. There was some information I interpreted what she said. I have not manipulated or lied. I have regretted that the situation arose.

11:30 Breivik: - The rumor that I would have to pay has arisen in the first report. I never said I want to be regent or the like.

11:30 Breivik: - I have never been caught lying to now. I have not been accused of manipulation. If I had manipulated someone, I had injured myself. It would be short-term gain by destroying my reputation.

11:31 Breivik: - Regarding conspiracy theories: It is not called when the theory is proven.

11:32 Breivik: - To say that this is delusion, is arrogant. Those who choose to call me a terrorist and mass murderer, shows that they are ignorant or forædere.

11:32 Breivik believe that the prosecutors that he calls the good Nordic ancestry, have to defend "their own genealogy defender."

11:33 Breivik Engh called "a beautiful Nordic woman" and Holden "a great Nordic man".

11:33 Arntzen says Breivik will not comment on the prosecutors, but the witness explained.

11:33 The Court has taken break to 12.30.

12:31 Psychology Professor Svenn Torgersen, as witnesses after lunch, has previously stated that there is nothing in the report from Husby and Sørheim documenting diagnosis Breivik received.

12:32 The court is set.

12:33 Torgersen testify as an expert witness. He now gives assurance to the court.

12:34 Torgersen explains about his background.

12:34 Prosecutors Holden: Can you elaborate on your professional background?

12:36 Torgersen: - I have neglected to write opinion pieces in newspapers about this matter. I have let myself be interviewed by reporters about the case.

12:36 Prosecutors Holden: - Do you have written or said anything about this case?

12:36 Torgersen wrote an article in the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association about various diagnoses.

12:36 Prosecutors Holden: - Have you spoken specifically about sane safety issue in this case?

12:37 Prosecutors Holden: - Have you been critical of the report 1?

12:38 Torgersen: - I have been critical of the report number one. I did not find correlation between premises and conclusion.

12:38 Prosecutors Holden: - Have you read the report, 2?

12:39 Torgersen: - Report no two are written in a different way. The way they write to say something. The reports are different. Report number two is more evaluative and an analysis of psychosis, lies and fantasies. It is one of the better I've read.

12:40 Prosecutors Holden leaves the word to Torgersen, who has prepared a post on this matter.

12:40 Torgersen - I can not promise not to contribute to confusion about diagnostic systems.

12:41 Torgersen explains around various diagnosesystmer. He was one of those who arranged the previous diagnosesystmet for Norwegian conditions.

12:42 Torgersen: - You did several translation errors. In a case kept the matter was about to go wrong, because it was a "not" was missing in the translation, he says on one diagnostic system.

12:44 Torgersen: - Man is not seldom that one can fit into several categories. When the diagnoses on the same level, it is difficult.

12:45 Torgersen explain various spekrum in diagnoses.

12:45 Torgersen: - The biggest problem is that diagnosis is no disturbance or disorder. There is a likelihood ratio between the diagnosis and suffering.

12:46 Torgersen: - As an example: It has been operated for many appendicitis unless it has been.

12:46 Torgersen: - Lawyers and experts are talking past each other. For other ways of thinking.

12:47 Torgersen: - There is no criteria on non-psychotic, just for psychosis. It has never been able to establish criteria for the rare stall "normality".

12:47 Torgersen: - You can never create criteria for non-psychotic.

12:48 Torgersen: - In all investigations of the reviews out there, you come out with different opinions. You do not get an agreement of 100%. When you go out with it, the ethics committee skeptical: - Is it cheating?

12:49 Torgersen: - When independent appraisers disagree, it is normal.

12:51 Torgersen: - if many make the same assessment, we then come to is usually good.

12:51 Torgersen: - It is perhaps not so wrong in such a case comes with views in a case like this. The sum may not be completely gone in the walls.

12:54 Torgersen: - It is quite clear that one can have bizarre beliefs and be absolutely normal.

12:55 Torgersen: - When you have a thought to share with many others, it is no longer a symptom of it during basic, but that you are part of a culture.

12:56 Torgersen: - It is not psychotic reading the horoscope.

12:58 Torgersen: - If one says that I can know if you lie about your political beliefs, this is in line with perhaps a colleague who brags a bit too much on them. It's nowhere near the mind reading found in schizophrenia.

12:59 Torgersen addresses the terrorist Una-bomber who sent bombs to various recipients in the United States.

13:01 Torgersen: - If you both schizofrenetiske moves and coercive moves, many will look at you as something affektavflatet.

13:03 Torgersen: - Paranoid psychosis is a very difficult area. It is something that lies between the severe psycho tendon and delusions.

13:05 Torgersen: - Yes, I agree completely in.

13:06 Torgersen: - It may be difficult to assess the difference between someone who is quite narcissistic and one who has a severe psychosis.

13:07 Torgersen: - There is often something silly or tragicomic of a paranoid psychosis.

13:07 Torgersen: - When a normal person says that those who killed Kennedy is following me.

13:08 Torgersen: - The megalomaniac is on me, the king and the prime minister.

13:08 Torgsersen: - They connect on famous people, even if they have not done anything himself. They think that what is about the familiar, revolves around them.

13:09 Torgersen: - One who has paranoid psychosis, see signs everywhere. They find signs all the time. One can almost say that there is something comical about how they find evidence of something.

13:10 Prosecutors Holden: - Do you see signs of such grandiose ideas?

13:11 Torgersen: - No. I can definitely grandositet. But I do not see a psychotic grandositet. I see now and then a good argument for grandositet ring.

13:11 Prosecutors Holden: - What about posing in boxers on Utøya and Knight uniform, it is comical effect?

13:12 Prosecutors Holden: - When the police should take a picture of the Utøya Breivik, he was posing like.

13:12 Lippestad: - Let's get this bit strict: He was asked to undress.

13:13 Torgersen: - I will not say much about this. I would wonder if it is a joke, to be sovereign. I would have gone into this from all sides to consider whether there was a paranoid psychosis?

13:13 Torgersen Arntzen asked how much he has been in court.

13:13 Torgersen: - I have been in court in recent days. I've seen some on TV. I have read the two reports.

13:15 Torgersen: - Specification is a way to find out whether there is a psychosis.

13:15 Holden asks Torgersen continue to account for personality disorders.

13:16 Torgersen said that other experts have examined the couple pretty good about personality disorders in the report.

13:17 Torgersen: - In these structured questionnaires used today one asks how a person has been during the past two years. You go not into questions about her childhood in such a question set. It does not. It is not practical.

13:18 Torgersen: - There are no scientists who are using this to talk about his childhood as significant in this context.

13:19 Torgersen: - This that you go back to my childhood, I have not seen in some research papers about this.

13:21 Arntzen ask the experts explain diagnosekritieriene they used.

13:21 Aspaas said that the criteria they used in the report are drawn from the Directorate of Health website. Not from the book referred to in court.

13:22 Torgersen: - It has never been a thought that one should have full bloom of youth when it comes to personality. You could then included a screening of the population and predict who lost'll develop it.

13:23 Holden: - It is important that we try to understand. What are the criteria for antisocial personality disorder?

13:24 Holden read from the diagnostic criteria (the blue book, ICD-10).

13:25 Torgersen: - This is the Criteria. But there is no structured forms that go on systematic interview about childhood.

13:26 Torgersen said in other words, the Criteria's in the manual ICD 10, but that there are no forms that are intended to reveal this.

13:26 Prosecutors Engh: - If you got someone in your office, and the person has great grandiose ideas. When you evaluate him, what do you do?

13:27 Torgersen - I will look at whether there are grounds for a paranoid psychosis if I can not confirm scizofreni. Then I'm left with personality disorder or that person is absolutely normal.

13:28 Engh: - Do you seek information about the person from other than himself?

13:29 Torgersen: - I also asked about childhood from other than the one investigated. For example, a spouse. It is assumed that the person allows it. If you do not have anyone to ask, and if it is difficult to ascertain the development, I will consider whether the person has a personality disorder.

13:29 Engh: - How would you assess the validity of his story?

13:30 Torgersen: - Pålikheten is enormous. You have to use what you have.

13:31 Holden asks Torgersen if he wants to go back in time and how far?

13:31 Torgersen said he will ask about childhood, but it's hard really to go back more than two years ago.

13:32 Torgersen: - You get the know a great deal that you believe in the examining. But one can not know that that's right.

13:33 Holden: - Can the event 22/7 feeds into the decision on any of the categories are met?

13:34 Torgersen: - I'm sorry I must say that I have to go against people who I think are talented. All the experts I've talked to agree that failure to take into account such an event is absolute. That, I think you should. If something happens violently in a family, for example, you will see the past in a new light.

13:35 Torgersen: - Failure to take what happened in the past, such as the planning is necessary in this case I mean.

13:35 Holden: - To use the event as a condition of the diagnosis is fulfilled is possible?

13:35 Torgersen: - now I talk about personality disorders.

13:35 Torgersen: - We have cases in the United States where people are completely normal, also lost the job and when it became acutely psychotic.

13:36 Bæra: - By what you have seen and observed, there are psychotic features that are of such gravity that it is a psychosis, what is your overall assessment?

13:37 Torgersen: - From what I've seen, which is very small, so is a person who is so precise and to the point of considering what is being said. Sometimes, in a surprising way of hitting the nail on the head to be psychotic. It's not for me.

13:38 Torgersen: - I can not find anything that confirms a psychosis.

13:39 Consequences: - To report 2, I want your assessment of the transaction there, and that there is a psychosis.

13:40 Torgersen: - If it is unlikely that it is an understatement. It makes sense.

13:41 Torgersen: - Manic psychosis ends abruptly. It can be gone in an instant. Ever forbølffende actually. However, a paranoid schizophrenic diagnosis can not disappear. I stand behind this conclusion from the report No. 2

13:42 Larsen: - You are familiar with the criticism from the forensic report to the Commission 2, and the shortcomings of Breivik's childhood and youth there?

13:42 Torgersen - I do not think there is a significant deficiency. And as I said I know of no diagnostic instrument when it comes to personality disorders where one goes back to childhood.

13:44 Torgersen: - It's a low threshold for personality disorder. There is a criteria and I understand the theoretical in it, but when it comes to practice, ask anyone in the area, so you can not roll back to life in practice.

13:44 Larsen: - Their assessment of the issue of narcissistic personality disorder, what would you say about it?

13:45 Torgersen: - I will not diagnosis, but diagnosis of personality disorder narssisstisk not announced, I would be amazed.

13:46 Torgersen: - If one is in one word say what is the core of narsisissmen, it is that one is warranted.

13:46 Larsen: - Can you find out why they concluded as they did in the first report?

13:47 Torgersen: - I am so amazed at the conclusion. It's not the way the criteria are.

13:47 Tørrissen : - How do you know how to express themselves?

13:48 Torgersen: - Yes, there are so many who are more skilled than me at it. But they will say it is definitely. The fact that a person expresses himself very pompous and use foreign words you might not understand, those skilled in that the more simply on the basis of this study could be quite a bit. Many types of personality disorders.

13:49 Torgersen talks about a method we can detect this.

13:49 Tørrissen : - Have you been witness to it in court have been modifications from Breivik, that is how he says things?

13:50 Torgersen: - No, I have not in my opinion, observed or heard.

13:50 Breivik smiles and looks down at the table.

13:51 Tørrissen  is read from the statement, and reproduces from Breivik's manifesto.

13:51 Torgersen: - What you talking about where it will for many of my colleagues who are skilled at this, flashing warning lights on narcissistic personality disorder.

13:52 Breivik: - Just to point out what you said about what I wrote in the Manifesto. I've always been happy with the look. In a country like Norway where the Jante law is widespread, this was a stab to the Law of Jante.

13:53 Breivik: - That the pose of Utøya was more like a joke. Because I was asked to undress me, something I would not, so I flex some muscle as a joke.

13:54 Breivik: - If a bloody action shall be given in an evaluation, this means that all jihadists are diagnosed with personality disorder. First, antisocial, and then if they say they are knights who will take over the world on behalf of Allah, they will have a narcissistic personality disorder. Therefore it is wrong to make sickly political extremism.

13:54 Arntzen Breivik asked if he has several comments on what you have been talking about. It has not Breivik.

13:55 Court takes break to 14.10.

14:14 The court will continue the negotiations.

14:15 The witness Tarjei Rygnestad heads the Forensic Commission.

14:15 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - Can you tell us about the seats you in the Commission under the Act. And in addition, I wish that you say a little about your background.

14:16 Rygnestad: - I am a doctor and specialist in pharmacology, I'm not an expert in psychiatry.

14:16 Engh: - What role does the Commission in a case like this?

14:18 Rygnestad: - We are appointed by the Ministry of Justice, and for a period of three years.

14:18 Rygnestad said that the Commission has several sub-groups within the various fields.

14:20 Rygnestad: - We will review the submission and if we find significant deficiencies, we shall point out them.

14:20 Rygnestad: - We will not even bring in experts and we will not conduct an investigation.

14:21 Rygnestad: - We may also request additional written statements within a time limit.

14:21 Rygnestad says that the court may consider the Commission's input exactly as it will. They will only ensure the quality of what is being presented by experts.

14:22 Rygnestad: - A disagreement in the assessment is called a dissent.

14:22 Rygnestad: - When we have given our written evaluation, our procedure done.

14:23 Rygnestad: - As a general rule, a case handled by three members.

14:24 Engh: - Is not it normal that you have meetings every time?

14:24 Rygnestad: - If a statement is of such poor standard, prayers are offered for new experts.

14:25 Rygnestad: - It happens occasionally.

14:26 Rygnestad: - When it comes to this matter, it was deemed necessary that I attended as an observer.

14:27 Engh: - How is it possible for the Commission that there are no objections on the two reports with conflicting conclusions?

14:27 Rygnestad emphasizes that the Commission does not have the mandate to approve something. - We shall give the right message about what the irregularities consist in.

14:28 Rygnestad say that they look at the relationship between premise and conclusion, but that they do not approve anything.

14:29 Engh: - It is not normal to have meetings with you? How do you assure the quality then?

14:29 Rygnestad: - We have electronic processing, each going in and read them, any three of its members. This means that we can sit anywhere in the country and do the work.

14:30 Engh: - How many meetings were under Statement No. 1?

14:30 Rygnestad: - There were two, I was present at one.

14:31 Engh: - It was one of these meetings that there was some information in the media. When you Rated Statement No. 1 Was there any controversy at this meeting on the conclusion you came up with?

14:31 Rygnestad: - No, but it depends how you formulate it.

14:32 Rygnestad: - In all academic situations we discuss.

14:32 Rygnestad says that just as the judges disagree in a courtroom is also the odds and begin discussions for and against.

14:33 Rygnestad: - In the meeting took on the role of "devil's advocate."

14:33 Rygnestad: - It was twisted and contorted the premises, every stone was turned.

14:34 Rygnestad: - Everything was turned, but there was consensus.

14:34 Rygnestad: - The regulations state that the court can call us to inquire about the reviews. And what should we do here and no one else.

14:35 Rygnestad: - My clear impression of the discussion was that it started when we were in agreement.

14:35 Engh: - Now, there have been some statements about what was said at that meeting. How long did that meeting?

14:35 Rygnestad: - 11 to 16.15

14:36 Rygnestad said he saw no disagreement at the meeting, as was reported in several media reports, the alleged quotes from the meeting. - It was clear to me that there must have been overheard by someone who was present.

14:37 Engh: - Did you get answers to what happened?

14:37 Breivik smiles, bites her lip and drinking water.

14:37 Rygnestad: - It must have been clear that we believed ourselves bugged or overheard. One possibility raised was that one of us by mistake had been lost in the phone.

14:38 Rygnestad: - To get the call logs was not easy.

14:38 Rygnestad says that they tried to get the call logs from those at the meeting, but it was not easy as they approached the telecom companies.

14:38 The matter was reported to the South Trøndelag police district.

14:39 Rygnestad: - There was an incoming call on my phone, which I had not registered. It was an open bar on 53 minutes.

14:40 Engh: - Do you know which number you were called from?

14:40 Rygnestad: - It was the switchboard at NRK.

14:41 Engh: - You have not talked with NRK on this?

14:41 Rygnestad: - No, it's an ongoing police investigation here.

14:41 Rygnestad says that when he realized what had happened, dropped the pieces into place with the quotes from the first part of the meeting was seen as a disagreement.

14:42 Rygnestad: - For us, it gave an explanation that a small portion of the meeting was drawn up.

14:43 Lippestad: - I will not ask about these leaks, but if the proceedings. You mentioned that one of the possibilities you fall down on is this with the possibility of an additional statement for a remark. Does one then to be detailed?

14:43 Rygnestad: - No, you will initially ask for more detailed statements, and not introduce new elements in the later rounds.

14:44 Lippestad: - You said about the report number 2, you had one meeting. Does this mean you have not spoken on the matter over to the meeting?

14:44 Rygnestad: - I know that Melle should say something about it later.

14:45 Rygnestad: - The main part of the process is electronic, it should be a closed processing system.

14:46 Lippestad: - Is there a common way to assess the way you did here?

14:46 Rygnestad: - Whether there are different comments, I do not agree in. This will Melle answer.

14:48 Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: - The thing about listening. When the call lasted 53 minutes, into your phone, there was a disagreement there?

14:49 Rygnestad: - I do not know, it was ahead of me on the table. We began with a show of hands, there was consensus.

14:49 Larsen: - Is it true that you start with a show of hands in such a commission? Starting is not already with the professional?

14:49 Rygnestad: - The diagnosis of the experts was reasonable based on the premises.

14:50 Rygnestad: - We meet to discuss, well, we discuss the case. It is the agenda here.

14:51 Rygnestad: - If there is scientific disagreement, it should be acknowledged.

14:51 Larsen: - Was there no professional disagreement?

14:52 Larsen: - So you had a meeting about the report number 1 after you had given the statement?

14:53 Rygnestad - I was not at the meeting number 2 It was about advance planning. The group envisioned that it would be summoned to give evidence. Yes, we had a meeting.

14:53 Larsen: - How long did the second meeting?

14:53 Rygnestad: - The meeting lasted one hour I think.

14:54 Larsen: - When was the date of this meeting?

14:54 Rygnestad: - The meeting was 19 april.

14:54 Larsen: - But the letter we received from you then, you had major objections to the report?

14:54 Rygnestad: - Yes.

14:54 Larsen read from the letter.

14:55 Larsen: - We received this letter from Judge Heather on 23 april.

14:55 The court players looking for that particular letter.

14:56 Larsen: - It says that the rettsmedinske Commission has the following remarks to the report. But there is no significant remarks. How should we understand this Rygnestad?

14:56 Rygnestad: - If we make a remark, it is a significant remark.

14:56 Larsen: - But is not it true that if you have remarks, it is important?

14:56 Rygnestad: - I will not comment on the law here.

14:56 Larsen: - What do you see as the Commission's job?

14:57 Rygnestad: - We should point out significant remarks, or missing.

14:57 Larsen: - I ask the question again. If significant comments and lacks the same concept?

14:57 Rygnestad: - If it is not clear, I regret it.

14:58 Larsen: - But you think the first letter should show that the first report significant deficiencies?

14:58 Rygnestad: - If it is not clear, I must say that I apologize.

14:58 Larsen: - Yes ... haha ??... I'll give it here, judge.

14:58 Larsen: - It is a question that our clients are concerned it is with impartiality. It is the relationship between Melle and Husby and that Sørheim has been head of the commission earlier.

14:59 Rygnestad: - I have given a detailed account of it, a thorough write to the Oslo District Court.

15:00 Rygnestad reads from Explain about possible conflicts of interest issues.

15:00 Larsen: - Is it true that six of the seven who treated this report have been working under Sørheim?

15:00 Rygnestad: - Yes, and it is duly mentioned in the report.

15:00 Arntzen: - For the record, ... is the answer given by the Commission not sent to aid the lawyers?

15:02 Elgesem: - I understand you so that in this meeting, you were the devil's advocate, the first meeting, telling you about all invendingene who had arrived in the press. But while you say that the Commission is not doing the investigation. Much of the criticism that has come in the press is the understanding of Breivik's views on civil war and stuff, have you discussed it?

15:02 Rygnestad: - No, we will only decide what is in the expert opinion.

15:03 Elgesem: - But take the example that Breivik believes he is in civil war, this is something to discuss?

15:03 Rygnestad: - This should Melle talk about.

15:03 Elgesem: - If you had a show of hands both the first and in the end?

15:03 Rygnestad: - I do not remember.

15:06 Judge Arne Lyng: - These deficiencies you are going through in the letter, ask you Tørrissen and Aspaas be included in a supplementary statement. Does it take an expert declaration to intelligence or is it something else and if so what?

15:07 Rygnestad: - It repeated the same general remarks, so then one might disagree with the assessment chapters. One does not have a whole received a reply.

15:08 Heather - This as you do next in your letter, that you ask the experts in court and addressed different issues. Is this normal and why do you do that?

15:09 Rygnestad: - We give our advice to the court, and this is just to point out that the experts can provide additional information during the main negotiations.

15:10 Judge Arntzen: - The last point you have written in the letter is quite general.

15:13 Judge Arntzen does not seem to be much more prudent of the answer from Rygnestad and say thank you to the witness.

15:13 Prosecutors Holden says that the hearing of Alpha Kallon has to take place from 15.30.

15:14 Holden says that he therefore proposed to Melle testimony that moved.

15:14 Larsen wants to record something with the court.

15:15 Larsen points out that it is the court administrator to start the examination of the rettsmedinske commission. It is certainly the wish of aid lawyers.

15:16 Arntzen: - I have not seen me have to guide the witness through the two statements. Perhaps prosecutors can say anything about it.

15:16 Engh: - What we intend is to examine the two statements with Melle.

15:16 Melle is Deputy Chair of the Forensic Medicine.

15:18 The court pauses to 15.45.

15:19 After the break, prosecutors will bring in Alpha Kallon as a witness. He met Breivik in Liberia in 2002. Kallon to be included on the video link from the United States.

15:46 Alpha Kallon is on the video link from the United States.

15:46 Kallon will be asked to give personal details of judgments Arntzen.

15:48 Arntzen: - Do you Breivik personally?

15:48 Kallon: - Yes, I met him in 2002.

15:49 Prosecutors Holden: You were in a police interrogation that lasted six hours, why do I need to thank you for that you have today. I can safely promise you that we will spend significantly less time.

15:50 Holden: - Explain the reason that you met Breivik in Liberia in 2002?

15:50 Kallon - I met him through a friend of mine.

15:51 Kallon: - He was in contact with Breivik and had met him over the internet and they communicated for some time, maybe a week or two, and Breivik expressed desire to come to Liberia.

15:51 Holden: - What happened next?

15:52 Kallon: - Michel, my friend, would have with me since I had a car. He would have me to the airport to pick up Breivik.

15:52 Holden: - Tell me about the first meeting with Breivik at the airport?

15:53 Kallon: - When we met at the airport Breivik, he was very calm and friendly and shook hands with us. We drove in one of my cars, a BMW I think.

15:53 Kallon: - On the way into Monrovia, we talked a bit about how he as Liberia.

15:53 Kallon: - He said he wanted to return to Liberia later.

15:53 Holden: - Told him what his mission in Liberia was?

15:54 Kallon: - Yes. My friend told me that Breivik was interested in trading with diamonds. He had come there to do business affiliations.

15:54 Holden: - After you had found a hotel to Brevik, what did you do the following days in Liberia?

15:55 Kallon - I was a little busy then, so since he was interested in diamonds - which I know nothing about, so I decided to take him to where the diamond shops located in Monrovia.

15:55 Holden: - Did Breivik much about diamonds?

15:55 Kallon: - I remember that he had no equipment to measure the purity of diamonds.

15:56 Holden: - What kind of diamonds he wanted to?

15:56 Kallon: - He said he wanted two carat pure diamonds. It is very small diamonds.

15:56 Holden: - You said that you went to diamond dealers. Tell us a bit more about it.

15:56 Kallon: - We went to a diamond shops and met some people who showed us some diamonds that we looked at.

15:56 Holden: - How many such vendors contacted you?

15:57 Kallon - I think there were a few, but I can not remember exactly how many.

15:57 Holden: - The police yesterday suggested the five to six dealers.

15:58 Kallon: - Yes, I did it. They just wanted me to assume a number.

15:58 Holden: - Acquired Breivik some diamonds?

15:58 Kallon: - No, he bought no diamonds. He said he did not have enough money to buy diamonds. He told us he did not have enough money and that the journey was only to make judgments.

15:59 Holden: - Did you do other things with Breivik, except to look at diamonds?

15:59 Kallon: - Yes, we went to a club at the end of the day to take us a few drinks.

15:59 Holden: - Did you other things together?

16:00 Kallon: - Not as I can remember, except that we were looking for diamonds and drove around a bit. Sometimes late at night we had a drink there.

16:00 Holden: - Was Breivik alone at any time, that is not in communion with you or your friend?

16:01 Kallon: - Except when he was at the hotel where he slept alone, and then left the me and my friend home. I never saw him in the street then. He had no car.

16:01 Holden: - Do you know whether he had contact with any other person while he was in Liberia?

16:01 Kallon: - No, I have no idea.

16:01 Holden: - Do you think you would have known that?

16:02 Kallon: - Mm ... I think that, Monrovia is a small town. I do not know if Michel suspected something, but it may be that Breivik went out after midnight when we left him at the hotel.

16:02 Holden: - Breivik has told us that he met a Serbian citizen by one or more occasions while he was in Liberia. Do you know anything about it?

16:02 Kallon: - I have no idea about it.

16:03 Holden: - So we know based on the stamps on the passport of Breivik that he was labeled in 18 april. Do you know if he stayed in Liberia throughout the time before he went back to Norway?

16:04 Kallon - I do not remember that I picked him up twice, so if he has been there before I do not know. But when we got him he was there until he left again.

16:04 Holden: - We see the passport that he stamps into 18 April, and an exit stamp 20 April, and a new entry stamp 22 april and utstempel 28 april. Meanwhile, we see that Breivik has been in the Ivory Coast. Is there something you were familiar with?

16:05 Kallon - I try to remember, but I can not remember that I picked him up twice at the airport. Maybe my friend remembers.

16:06 Holden: - So we know that Breivik went to Norway 28 april. Did you have any agreement on further contact Breivik left Liberia?

16:06 Kallon: - There was never any deal, but my friend had no cell phone, it was the only one who had.

16:07 Holden: - Did you have any agreement with Breivik after he left Liberia?

16:07 Kallon: - Yes, he told me that he had not brought enough money, so I let him use one of my cars on credit, he would pay it back later.

16:07 Holden: - If you do something Breivik after he was gone?

16:08 Kallon: - Yes, he told us to look for diamonds for him. Some of the money he sent to me we should use to buy diamond samples for him and take pictures of it.

16:08 Holden: - Did you find any diamonds Breivik?

16:08 Kallon: - No, we do not have diamonds.

16:09 Holden: - Can you describe the experiments you did?

16:10 Kallon: - Well, what happened was that he sent money to your account. When the money arrived, I took what he owed me for the rest of the money we went to Sierra Leone to see if we could get some copies of small diamonds.

16:10 Holden: - We see from the statements that were transferred $ 500 31 May 14th 4400 June. How much of this would be used to buy diamonds for Breivik?

16:11 Kallon - I can not remember the exact amount we would spend on diamonds. I do not remember how much I would get for the rent of a car.

16:11 Holden: - You did not find diamonds Breivik, I understand?

16:12 Kallon: - Yes, unfortunately it was so it was not enough money to buy diamonds. We went from town to town and had to have money for the car, so it was probably just a vurderingstur.

16:12 Holden: - We see the telephone transcripts that Breivik has been calling your cell phone number four times. What was the content of these conversations?

16:13 Kallon: - It was just about business, diamonds, and when he would come back and that he would take us to Norway and see where he was conducting business.

16:14 Defense Ground: - Can you tell us about your and your friend's life when you hit Breivik?

16:15 Kallon: - At the time we met I was in Breivik used car industry and also currency exchange. And before he came, I had been in the U.S. in 2001 and had come back. Michel worked that time in an airline named Ophelia travel agency.

16:15 Grounded: - Were you or Michel involved in the diamond trade in any way?

16:16 Kallon: - No, we did not have any bearing on it.

16:16 Grounded: - Why do you think then that it was Breivik purposes to contact Michel?

16:16 Kallon: - Now it was that Michel came to me. Many come to Liberia and Africa to get into business and we thought that Breivik was also such a person.

16:17 Kallon - I do not know what kind of impression Breivik had given Michel before he came down.

16:17 Grounded: - Can you say what Norwegian journalists have told you about this matter?

16:19 Kallon: - They came to me two weeks ago, I can not remember. They showed me a picture of Breivik and asked if I knew him. I said yes, and then they asked me tell you about the meetings I had with Breivik and why I met him in the same way I tell you now. They asked me to discuss what kind of contact I had with him.

16:19 Grounded: - Have you been in contact with journalists after you were questioned by police?

16:19 Kallon: - Yes, I met two reporters after the hearing yesterday.

16:19 Grounded: - Have they told you what Michel said to you?

16:20 Kallon: - They told me that his story was almost the same as he had told them.

16:20 Grounded: - Have you ever had contact with Breivik by phone or email?

16:21 Kallon - I do not remember to have had email contact with Breivik. I had no email address, I did not even know much about computers at that time. I had a cell phone at the time, but it was not my friend, Michel.

16:21 Grounded: - Did you get an impression of how much money Breivik had with him?

16:22 Kallon: - He told me he did not have enough money. So why would he borrow a car from me and pay me back later. I never saw that he had the money there.

16:22 Grounded: - How he paid for things else where, he used the card?

16:22 Kallon: - He paid cash.

16:22 Grounded: - So he brought with him some money.

16:22 Kallon: - Yes, he told me he had money, but it was not enough. That's what I said.

16:22 Grounded: - Not enough for what?

16:23 Kallon: - For that he could pay me for the car. He did not have enough money to pay for the car, but he said he did not have enough. It was so that I did not know how much money he had, but he seemed friendly so I let him use my car.

16:24 Grounded: - Breivik asked you a few times to change money?

16:24 Kallon: - I can not remember. I do not remember if he took money for me to switch.

16:24 Grounded: - How long do you think you spent in each diamond store?

16:24 Kallon: - We spent a good 20 to 30 minutes or less.

16:25 Grounded: - Were you in stores outside of Monrovia?

16:25 Kallon - I can remember that we may have visited Bush Road Island.

16:25 Grounded: - How long did it get there?

16:26 Kallon - I did not live near Breivik hotel, but my place of business was closely Breivik hotel.

16:26 Grounded: - Were you with Breivik every day he was in Liberia?

16:26 Kallon: - No. I was in my business. Sometimes he and Michel and picked me up when we were nothing.

16:27 Grounded: - Contacts between Breivik and Michel stopped at some point afterwards. Do you know why, who broke the socket?

16:28 Kallon - I can not say anything about it. Michel gave me the only information that he and Breivik spoke of when he would come back. Also, suddenly, he said Breivik would not come back. More I do not know.

16:28 Grounded: - Was it you or Michel was most with Breivik when he was in Liberia?

16:28 Kallon: - I think it was Michel.

16:28 Grounded: - Were you with Breivik at night?

16:29 Kallon: - Michel was always with me Breivik and it was Michel who had been the contact person. I just assist.

16:29 Grounded: - Michel is not questioned, but the VG has been in contact with him. He explains that he was not with Breivik evenings. How can you ten years later to make sure that Breivik not hit others?

16:31 Kallon: - That's why I said it was except when we had gone home. I said that when we left the hotel Breivik we saw him until the next morning. But I never saw him otherwise out in the streets and Monrovia is a small town and I was much out on the streets there.

16:31 Lippestad: - You were born in Liberia? What was the situation in Liberia in 2002?

16:32 Kallon: - It was very peaceful. It was a friendly and positive atmosphere. We had a lot of investors who came down there to run with diamonds and gold.

16:32 Lippestad: - In the court has Breivik said that there was much unrest there?

16:32 Kallon: - Yes, but it was not when he was there. It was stable conditions. But before Breivik got there it was peaceful conditions there.

16:33 Lippestad: - Charles Taylor was President at that time. Do you know if he used European soldiers in connection with the unrest that was there?

16:33 Kallon: - I have no idea. I was just a local businessman.

16:34 Lawyer Hallgren: - There was a collapse of Yugoslavia in the nineties, and it should have stayed Serbs in Liberia. Do you know anything about that?

16:34 Kallon: - No.

16:35 Hallgren: - Do you know if the Europeans lived in Monrovia at all?

16:35 Kallon: - Not anyone I know ...

16:35 Kallon - I can not remember having had any contact with Europeans there.

16:35 Hallgren: - If you had contact with Europeans, did you know about someone?

16:36 Kallon: - It appeared that it was the foreigners there, but none that I had contact with.

16:36 Hallgren: - Leased Breivik ever a car?

16:36 Kallon: - No, I can not remember anything about. He only took my car in Liberia.

16:36 Hallgren: - If Michel had rented a car with him, would you know that?

16:37 Kallon - I think so. For Michelangelo hid nothing for me.

16:38 Arntzen: - You said you did Breivik use your car, and that he owed you money for it. He used the car alone, or were you with him?

16:39 Breivik have any comments on the diploma.

16:39 Kallon: - No I can not remember that he drove my car. We were together all the time. It was either with me and I drove the car or that he ran together with Michel. I do not think Breivik had known where he was going to run on your own.

16:40 Breivik: - The reason I went was to meet a militant nationalist. Before I got the task of my English mentor to create an alias, Henry Benson.

16:40 Breivik: - Alpha and Michel did not know me that Breivk but Benson. The cover of my trip was the purchase of blood diamonds. This was advice that I chose to follow.

16:41 Breivik: - I visited the Serb about five times, it was the only capital that Charles Taylor controlled. I do not know what Kallon think that Monrovia is a small town, inhabited by around 500,000 there.

16:42 Breivik: - The reason I did not buy diamonds, was that it was not why I was there.

16:43 Breivik - I was worried that they might know where I lived, they were not aware of the Serb identity. My contact with them was limited to five or six times.

16:43 Wikipedia: In 2008 there were an estimated 980,000 people in and around the center of Monrovia, the capital of Liberia.

16:43 Breivik: - If I had wanted to buy diamonds, I could have done it.

16:44 Breivik Kallon says that explanation does not hold, and represent the first time Kallon told VG.

16:45 Breivik says that his plan was to transfer money to the Alpha and Michel so he had access to these when he would come back later. The purpose was that he would not have to smuggle money into the country.

16:45 Breivik: - If the police had asked me 21 July, I replied that I was a farmer. It was a cover story.

16:45 Lippestad to Kallon: - Heard you heard the name Henry Benson?

16:45 Kallon: - No, I can not remember.

16:46 Lippestad: - Can you remember about Breivik used that name in Liberia?

16:46 Kallon: - Yes, I think was the name he used. I called him just Breivik after you contacted me.

16:46 Kallon - I think that was the name he used.

16:47 The witness is finished.

16:47 Kallon: - Bon soir.

16:47 The court is adjourned for today.