Transcripts‎ > ‎

Anders Behring Breivik Court Transcript 2012-06-13 Live Report

Wednesday June 13 2012

Source: live.tv2.no/22-juli-rettssaken-direkte/dag-36/

8:47 Good morning from Oslo Courthouse. Court participants are beginning to adopt courtroom 250 for day 36 of the trial after 22 July attacks.

8:48 Today starts the first lawsuit cute to give their explanations.

9:01 Before the committee begins his testimony, the Karl Heinrik Melle from RMK witness.

9:02 The defendant is brought into the courtroom.

9:04 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh come into the courtroom. All players are in place, waiting for the judges.

9:04 Reten set.

9:05 Lawyer Frode Elgesem: - We are going to want a diploma from NRK or other about what came out of the phone.

9:06 Melle gives assurance to the court. He is head of the psychiatric group RMK.

9:07 Judge Arntzen explains what Melle will explain about in connection with RMK. He will not consider the experts' conclusions.

9:07 Melle has provided insurance.

9:08 Karl Heinrik Melle account of his and the group's experience and knowledge.

9:16 Judge asks Arntzen Melle explain a bit about competence assessment and case management in RMK.

9:18 Melle: - We decided to put the full commission in the treatment. Two of the members rated themselves as conflict of interest and did not participate in deliberations.

9:19 Melle: - It was also raised that the Husby had been superior to two of its members and that Sørheim had been a member of the commission and head of RMK Group.

9:20 Melle: - It was decided that no one should start looking at the documents before the disqualification was assessed.

9:21 Melle: - We sent over a list of those we thought were competent. Two days later we received a response from the court stating that neither party had commented on this. We perceived that this was presented to the parties and that no one had objections.

9:22 Melle: - We sent out all physical statements in the case with additional statements to all members.

9:23 Melle: - Everyone should read and process the declarations and to journal our base. Then they could read the other reviews.

9:23 Melle: - All makes his own opinion and registers.

9:24 Melle: - When we put the meeting 20 December, we had a fair amount of comments we had to take up. I started with three questions first. How many think this person is mentally, jmfr. Statement. All meant it.

9:24 Melle: - All answered yes that they thought it was an F20-0.

9:25 Melle: - When I asked about how many people believe in no significant remark? Then there are three thought. Three did not, I refrained from saying anything.

9:26 Melle explains the earlier communications between RMK and justice in connection with previous cases.

9:28 Prosecutors Svein Holden testified helps to clarify the reference in law Journal of the witness is referring to.

9:30 Melle: - As long as we can remember, has not been the wording of the regulations used by the Commission. Practice has been "no comment" or "no significant remark," or we have had a remark.

9:31 Melle: - Each one should argue for their stand location. We discussed the various remarks that we had, they would form the basis for us to give any remark. We decided to give "no significant remark."

9:32 Melle: - I completed the case in our base on the evening of 20 December.

9:33 Melle: - Everything about your letter is in the psychiatric group has said. The group that stands for what is written in the letter.

9:34 Melle: - We had a regular meeting on 26 January. This was not saksbehanlingen discussed. Then we were told that there was a new statement with new experts. None of the group members were considered inhablie in relation to the new experts.

9:36 Melle: - 10 april, we got the second statement. Members should read the statement, enter the base until they saw what others had posted.

9:37 Melle: - We had set aside 19 april, when we had a meeting in Trondheim. The meeting ended in no clear conclusion. In the aftermath, a number of case management in the closed base. There were also some telephone calls between members.

9:38 Melle: - 30 april, we received an additional statement from Aspaas / Tørrissen.

9:39 Melle explains about the contact from the court regarding how their statement should be understood.

9:41 Melle explains how it is done in Denmark when their corresponding RMK treat cases.

9:42 Arntzen: - Has communication members had access to the material the experts base their statements on?

9:42 Melle: - Beyond the experts submit, no.

9:43 Melle: - I have never as an expert witness requested that RMK will have sent documents.

9:44 Breivik notes while Melle explains itself.

9:44 Melle: - We will mainly control the quality of written statements submitted to the court, where we receive the copy. It is our mandate.

9:45 Melle: - We have had meetings on all statements, except for the additional statement from the expert number two.

9:46 Melle: - We control the quality. We are only based on the written document we have received. There are four legal experts who are court counselors, it is not the Commission.

9:47 Melle: - They are the experts who have examined observanden.

9:48 Melle on the first report: - The remarks we had itself or together, could not lead to any change in the forensic conclusion. They were not significant.

9:50 Melle: - We have tried to focus on quality assurance statements we have received, not to focus on what happened in the public domain.

9:50 Melle: - surveys the experts have done, is through two different time periods.

9:51 Melle: - The first expert had a very good starting point. It happened shortly afterwards, he was isolated and did not know how the outside world perceived him. In retrospect, it has been discussed with observanden, including the first statement.

9:53 Melle: - The other lawsuit cute had a far harder task. They do not get started until the study over a half years after the action. They have done much to compensate for this, looked at video footage of interviews and made the-clock observation of Ila.

9:54 Melle: - The most important point they should advise the court, is how the conclusions they have about his condition at the time of action. This will be a harder rating, the longer the time that has passed.

9:55 Melle: - There are two statements with opposite conclusions. There is no doubt that the commission that this is not in line with what the experts think.

9:56 Melle: - The public debate on the Declaration has led observanden a different ability to adapt.

9:56 Melle explains how one relates to the answer by questioning various ways.

9:58 Melle: - The forms work well to be used for diagnosis for treatment. In forensic psychiatric context, one should be very careful.

9:59 Melle: - A observand can customize the answers. We made an assessment that he could attempt to match answers to seem fresh.

10:00 Melle: - Good diagnostics is to interact in a truthful manner. Missing the true descriptions of experiences, it becomes uncertain.

10:01 Melle - I was pretty annoyed to read the first statement. There were some things that were not followed up. I got the impression that the experts sat with a microphone stand to him.

10:01 Melle said that this also applies to the second statement.

10:01 Melle: - There are not followed as often as one would like. The experts may have tried but not succeeded.

10:02 Melle: - We want to point at some point in the declarations which further questioning would have been followed up.

10:03 Melle: - The examples are clear, but not representative of the declarations.

10:05 Melle: - A person who appears to be psychotic may also have a personality disorder.

10:07 Arntzen: - Can we expect a discussion section under consideration before concluding a diagnosis?

10:07 Melle: - There has been a disability discussion. Once one has concluded that a person is psychotic in rettsmedinsk sense, it does not matter.

10:09 Melle explains the different diagnostic systmer.

10:10 Melle: - Observanden have any basis considered unusual.

10:11 Arntzen: - In the criticism of the other, you have used information from the first. If the last statement had come first, could it have been a comment that they then would have commented on the observation?

10:12 Melle: - It is much harder to come at number two with a different conclusion - no matter what.

10:12 Melle: - Do you have any other conclusion you have to argue why your right.

10:14 The Court has taken break of 1030.

10:34 The court is set

10:35 Melle: - The first statement we had no substantial remarks.

10:36 Melle reads parts of the statement.

10:37 Melle: - You could get the impression that something happened in 2009 in the Commission's relationship with the concepts in criminal law. It has not been the case. We have tried to be loyal to swell the line that has been conducted. We use the psychotic in law and clinical sense.

10:38 Melle explains the Commission's evaluation of items in the report.

10:41 You can see the explanation in the video window in the live center.

10:42 Melle: - We thought that observandens new arrangement did not meet the requirements of neologisms.

10:43 Melle: - If the experts have missed all the criteria, so we understood that if it were a delusion, we considered the criteria for psychosis in the criminal law was fulfilled because it was so extensive.

10:44 Melle: - What we did was based on the experts talked about observanden.

10:45 Melle: - Toward 2010 he becomes increasingly concerned about the ending of the offenses. Functional decline continues, he has no contact with friends and outside the workplace.

10:47 Melle: - The way to laugh at you can be an expression of schizophrenia.

10:47 Breivik talks with his defenders.

10:48 Melle: - None of the commission disagrees that observanden may have right-wing ideology.

10:49 Melle: - The question is whether anything can be perceived as big ideas, without regard to ideology.

10:51 Breivik: - This is an abuse of power that I can not comment and Moe fictional stories.

10:51 Arntzen: - You should call the experts at their correct names. We've been through.

10:51 Melle continues his explanation.

10:54 Melle: - The way he describes it in the future society, with the reserve. There are few who believe that it is achievable.

10:54 Breivik smiles during the explanation.

10:56 Melle: - Every single symptom, behavioral component, can clearly have an alternative explanation. The individual factors can be interpreted differently, does not mean that konkulsjonen is incorrect.

10:56 Melle: - Sometimes the simplest explanation is the most important.

10:58 Melle: - Quite early in the talks, they have a longer discussion of KT. Is this a direct quote from what he has said this is a performance impact. And the experts do not ask further.

10:58 Melle read out that Breivik explained that if someone read the manifesto, they were radicalized.

10:59 Melle: - It has been a point that people should have independent conversations and shared conversations afterwards. This is also a legal way to think independently. But it is not necessarily professionally wrong to have joint discussions. We did not consider it as a significant remark.

11:00 Melle go through the report number two.

11:00 Melle: - It seems like the other experts assume that the first gave a false positive diagnosis.

11:01 Melle: - They should not only been based in that the first is wrong.

11:02 Melle: - We say they have not taken adequate subject to false negative.

11:04 Melle: - We did not know they had a good enough account of the general criteria. We wanted them to explain the validity of the answers in the tests, and children, youth.

11:06 Melle refers to Penal Code section 39 which deals with transfer to forced mental health care for one who declared that impunity for such. psychosis.

11:08 Melle: - Some have the ability to accumulate. We can not claim that it has happened here, but it can not be categorically rejected.

11:09 Melle: - Some may hide the symptoms over several weeks, some for several months. We can not say that he has done it, but it can not be dismissed as categorical as the other experts have done.

11:10 The experts note mes Melle explains itself.

11:11 Melle - I thought the answer we gave was understandable. It was not. We were still disagree, but also took note of the declaration.

11:12 Melle: - We pointed directly at the things we wanted to know more about from the experts.

11:13 Arntzen: - The last thing that came from RMK was more enlightening.

11:14 Melle: - The assessors sitting with a huge bulky material. We thought they would be able to document their position. It was meant as a signal, not to control the court.

11:14 Breivik discuss with defender Vibeke Hein berries.

11:15 Melle: - It will be up to the court what should be emphasized. The critics were not on the conclusions, but the lack of discussions.

11:17 Melle: - He has explicitly said that he will moderate the statement, then it should be discussed if there could be reasons other than pomposity.

11:18 Melle refers to statements in the report number two.

11:19 Arntzen: - On page 12 referred to this methodology. What stresses you on this?

11:20 Melle: - If it could be verified must be at a greater level of detail.

11:21 Melle: - We are influenced by having read the first report.

11:23 Melle: - If the prime minister had wanted this man dead, it would be natural to do it while he stood with arms. But the prime minister could have arranged it after he was arrested, had demanded follow-up questions. It may be a symptom.

11:25 Melle: - We have had a pattern in Norwegian law where there was a medical term. Then it was up to the court's discretion. As I understood it, it has been unchanged since 1929, with the exception of substance abuse.

11:26 Melle: - In cases where substance abuse is not documented, we have a fairly unambiguous term "psychotic". The problems arose in Norway in connection with the law on mental health care, when they began to define the terms differently. In Denmark, following the civil and criminal circuit concept all together.

11:28 Melle explains the diagnostic concept.

11:29 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - Now there had been a desire for me to clean up their questions.

11:30 Lawyer Larsen: - I understood that Melle did not answer the court's questions. What is the nature of the criminal law concept of psychosis?

11:30 Melle account of the criminal law concept of psychosis.: - You should be so psychotic that you do not have a realistic relationship with the outside world.

11:31 Melle explains further diagnostic system, which is divided in two.

11:33 The court takes a lunch break at 12.15. Then there will be opportunity for questions to Melle.

12:17 Court actors have come into the courtroom 250

12:17 The defendant is brought in after the lunch break.

12:18 The court is set.

12:19 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - Regarding Statement No. two. What do you disagree with today?

12:20 Melle: - What we are able to read from the statement and supplementary statement, it is difficult to see that the basic criteria for personality disorder is present.

12:20 Melle: - In order to distinguish between personality change and personality developed in the late teens, must have data to compare with.

12:23 Melle account for how they look at the different assessments of criteria.

12:23 Engh: - You had comments that it was discussed that what if the conditions for personality disorder was not present, what?

12:24 Melle: - The way we read it, it was clear statements from the mother and friends describing a change and not a development.

12:24 Melle: - Although it is unlikely, we should discuss it and not ignore it.

12:26 Engh asked about testing conducted with iforbindelse statement number one.

12:26 Melle: - We thought it was a low score.

12:27 Melle: - People who need constant monitoring because they are a danger to themselves or others, to score low.

12:28 Melle said they believe it would be smarter for the experts to use a different test.

12:29 Melle: - Had they used a PANS it would be easier for others to consider it.

12:30 Breivik notes while Melle explains itself.

12:30 Melle: - I can not say that it is wrong score. The test is very peripheral to both assessments.

12:33 Melle: - It is obvious that he is more toned down in the second statement than the first. There are none in his previous life as pointed out his remarkable speech.

12:33 Engh: - You said that if everything falls into schizophrenia everything falls into paranoid psychosis?

12:34 Melle: - Yes.

12:35 Melle: - Right-wing who actively planning an action, need not be psychotic.

12:36 Melle: - If I had a friend who did an act and I was also right-wing, it may not have spoken the truth to the police.

12:36 Melle: - There is a huge problem when you have this with the right-wing ideology and whether one is psychotic or not.

12:38 Melle: - In the manifesto is the little things that do not fit in a manifesto. It is something that is just too personal.

12:39 Breivik smiles and shakes his head while Melle reads from one of the reports.

12:41 Melle: - We believe that it is well done delusions about greatness. This takes all his life and reality. This is a significant failure to function in a normal society, and are of such a time that we think it is psychotic under the Criminal Code.

12:42 Engh: - Can you say how reports split up?

12:43 Melle: - You will be able to get a diagnosis of schizophrenia without touch with reality. In criminal law there must be such a great touch with reality, that you are without the ability to assess realistically your relationship with the outside world. Based on your understanding of reality you assume a responsibility to act.

12:44 Engh: - The two teams split up, one he finds real flaws that the other not. Is it easy?

12:45 Melle: - It was not enough elaborated that it would be neologisms.

12:46 Melle: - new order that is not neologisms that are easy to take.

12:48 Melle: - We had a discussion whether we should ask for elaboration on the insignificant remarks. We went through point by point.

12:49 Engh: - There has been much debate over the declarations. Is there anything that has emerged in the public sphere that has changed on the Commission's views on statement number two?

12:49 Melle: - We have almost never relate to the public.

12:50 Engh: - Around the statement number one. Has it arrived which means that you do not represent that it has no significant comments?

12:50 Melle: - No.

12:51 Defender Geir Lippestad: - You mentioned that there was a weakness in the report, two, in that it is not thoroughly explained why they have reached a different conclusion than the report number one?

12:52 Melle: - They should not simply put his statement into account.

12:52 Lippestad: - If a doctor has made a diagnosis and another with a different diagnosis, it is good ethics to discuss what is wrong?

12:52 Melle: - Yes.

12:53 Lippestad: - There are other psychiatrists who have evaluated Breivik. Specialist health have concluded that he is not psychotic. Why is there no criticism of a report that they were not considered this?

12:54 Melle: - If you have positive symptom present, it is easier to argue about than if they are not finding.

12:55 Melle: - If you have two hospitals that do not agree, you could have requested an assessment from a third hospital. If someone comes and has a pain in the abdomen and one hospital will find out what, while others do not find something, it would be good practice to deal with those who took the disease.

12:57 Lippestad: - That you have not been concerned about what the specialist health service believes there has been no evidence of psychosis. Not even the professionals who had contact with him at Ila. At the first expert had not dug more into this and argued why special care was wrong?

12:57 Melle: - When you find something, it requires something different than if you can not find anything.

12:58 Lippestad: - You said that regarding the report number one, so you do not that any significant deficiency that is not problematised schizophrenia any more?

12:59 Melle: - They were within section 44

12:59 Lippestad: - If schizophrenia is not relevant to the criminal law section 44 Why is it important in relation to the second report assessing personlighetsforstyellelsen against clause 44?

13:00 Melle: - If there is a personality, what is it then, even if they believe it is unlikely.

13:01 Melle: - They must explain the different scenarios.

13:02 Lippestad: - You challenge the report number two printers if they have been duped. Why not questioned this to the number one?

13:02 Melle: - Had the experts been asked a supplementary declaration, it would be natural.

13:03 Melle: - It is quite clear that in ordinary cases it is the opposite. It was to appear sick to avoid punishment is one of the most famous problems in the world. Our perception of how they portray him in the declaration, that the idea that he would play was not there.

13:04 Melle: - It is located in the dianostiske methodology to exclude those who play. The first expert had fewer grounds for thinking that, compared with those who wrote the report number two.

13:08 Arntzen: - Considered to you that his grandositet be interpreted in the context ideologogisk?

13:08 Melle: - We understood that some terrorist attack was only part of it to spread the manifest.

13:09 Melle said that Commission members had not acquired the manifest on its own.

13:10 Lippestad: - If the defendant believed that the prosecutor, I had become convinced extreme right, did you mean it says a lot about the defendant?

13:10 Melle: - The way we read it, it would be a delusion about it?

13:12 Lippestad: - How to interpret the statements of Breivik, is important for a psychosis review?

13:12 Melle: - Along with some other items.

13:13 Lippestad: - How long had members of the Commission report physically by hand?

13:15 Melle: - We received the Statement 29 november. I did not start until around 8 caseworker December. The statement was issued from about 1 December.

13:16 Lippestad: - How many of the members wrote in advance its independent comments before you met?

13:16 Melle: - I think all but one entered.

13:18 Lippestad: - It was appointed by a form of "devil's advocate" to see things from all points of view. You say that the concept of psychosis is not discussed any further?

13:19 Melle: - No. Everything was discussed. But because of the gap, we started with those who thought it would not be significant remark argued his. In a group are more fore, while others are more reticent.

13:21 Lippestad: - It has been discussed this with working conditions, and friendship between the Commission and the first two experts. Do you know if you or someone in the Commission has had direct contact with one or both experts since you got the first report?

13:22 Melle: - After the first report was submitted to the present. Not that I know.

13:24 Lawyer Frode Elgesem start questioning the coordinating aid lawyers: - You said all regarded him as psychotic?

13:24 Melle: - Yes, after reading a report.

13:27 Elgesem: - The assumption that Breivik said he was in civil war. Was it discussed?

13:28 Melle: - There was no significant objection.

13:29 Elgesem: - The importance of the observation occurred. The new experts emphasized the statements of the prison health service. Were you aware of what was available there, when you report Rated number one?

13:30 Melle: - It is in the expert report number two we have got good excerpts.

13:33 Melle answer questions about the processing of report number two.

13:35 Melle: - If the court believes that the report number two and evidence in court has weakened report number one, the court must consider.

13:37 Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen takes over questioning.

13:40 Larsen: - According to the mandate that there should be two independent assessments. How could you check that there were two independent reviews?

13:41 Melle: - It would be impossible to check.

13:41 Melle: - The obvious conflict of interest, we will be able to comment.

13:43 Melle sought out around the impartiality and independence between the first two experts.

13:43 Melle: - Do you work a lot together, there is a greater danger that one knows how the other thinks and does.

13:44 Melle: - We have assumed that they have made their independent assessments.

13:46 Breivik smiles while Larsen grills Melle on time spent to process the first report.

13:48 Larsen: - If it is not satisfied that there are neologisms, why do not you ask the experts explain this?

13:49 Breivik discuss with his two main defenders Geir Lippestad and Vibeke Hein berries.

13:50 Melle: - One of the commission believed that Asperger could be a conclusion.

13:55 Melle said that the Commission has not kept a secret that there was disagreement in the Commission: - There was no disagreement when we left the meeting.

13:59 Judge Arne Lyng: - Found RMK because the terms of CD10 met for schizophrenia in the first statement?

13:59 Melle: - We had understood that argument enough for paranoid schizophrenia.

14:01 Heather asks about the diagnosis in Melle henhod to diagnostic systems are fulfilled.

14:02 Melle: - We perceived that they perceived as .... They perceived it as an idea that you can read minds. Together with the other. There we agreed.

14:07 Melle on report number to: - If your personality falls away, the patient's symptoms could be explained by anything else. Therefore, we believe they should have discussed this.

14:10 Heather asks methodology and independence.

14:12 Heather: - If the Commission had any thoughts about the reasons to have public conversations?

14:12 Melle: - As I see it, they made a trade to respond to the mandate as possible.

14:13 Heather: - You have pointed to the final assessments for each common conversation. The Commission has discussed and considered whether this is an independent review?

14:13 Melle: - We have seen that there have been two experts who have made an independent assessment.

14:14 Melle: - We have not considered it.

14:16 The court pauses until 1435. Then Breivik comment on the witness before the court is raised for the day.

14:16 The experts should not testify during today's hearing.

14:33 Basically, it was four days on the committee testimony. Then there was a day of witnesses summoned to aid attorneys. Judge Arntzen stated that aside the expert starts his story first in the morning, it may go beyond the right of free day Wednesday about a week.

14:34 Court participants are beginning to take their places. The defendant is brought into the courtroom.

14:35 Breivik's comments to the witness is not allowed broadcast.

14:37 After court is adjourned, the press conference with the players.

14:37 The court is set.

14:38 Arntzen exhorts Breivik not to use nicknames on the court players.

14:39 Breivik: - A comment Melle. According to him it was assumed that I had planned for so many years, they considered it as a realitietsbrist. It is not true that I started in 2009, as in the original report.

14:40 Breivik: - It is clear that RMK lacks expertise in politically motivated violence.

14:40 Breivik: - It is natural to collect assessments from militant Islamists. It is similar with militant nationalism.

14:40 Breivik: - That they did this was a mistake, they should recognize.

14:41 Breivik: - Sometimes you have to admit failure. They should also recognize that they are and still is disqualified when the first expert has had a relationship with the majority of the members.

14:42 Breivik: - If there is dissent becomes chaos. There is a quote from the meeting they had. Is not that a uaksptabel way to push through consensus.

14:42 The court adjourned for the day.

14:47 It is announced a press conference with players around the clock 15 We follow the explanations rettssakkyndiges alive from the center at 09 in the morning.

14:48 The press conference starts at 14.55. You can follow it directly in the video window here in the live center.