Transcripts‎ > ‎

Anders Behring Breivik Court Transcript 2012-06-15 Live Report

Friday 15 June 2012

Source: live.tv2.no/22-juli-rettssaken-direkte/dag-38/

8:47 Good morning from Oslo Courthouse to day 38 of the trial after the terrorist attacks on 22 last July.

8:48 The first two legal experts, Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim, will today continue their testimony about their report on Breivik's mental state in connection with the attacks.

8:49 The entire day yesterday just went to go through your statement and what they had observed so far during the trial. Today the court asking the players out.

8:55 Court participants are about to get into the courtroom 250

9:01 The defendant Anders Breivik Behring introduced into the courtroom.

9:05 The court is set.

9:06 Judge Arntzen: - It has been a communication from the mother's attorney that the information concerning her, shall be dealt with behind closed doors.

9:06 Arntzen: - What you consent ga mother during their investigation?

9:07 Synne Sørheim: - She was initially informed that the information was used in the declaration and in court. We obtained no further documentation.

9:07 Arntzen: - Holden. I would like to see the consent.

9:07 Prosecutors Svein Holden: - Prosecutors Engh is in the process of obtaining this.

9:08 Arntzen: - So far as we avoid questions relating to this section.

9:11 Arntzen ask the experts about the police explanation about Breivik's economy has had an impact on their judgment about the issue.

9:13 Husby: - If one could imagine that 2002-2006 is a forperiode to kill to come. We attach no significant weight on it, but mention it.

9:14 Arntzen: - You testified yesterday that the change that took place in 2006 is indisputable. This also applies to how you interpret the diagnostic?

9:15 Arntzen: - He created World of Warcraft account. Did you know what this game was and how complicated it was?

9:15 Sørheim: - We only know what he explained.

9:16 Sørheim: - In our opinion it is to sit in a room playing video games is not the same as having normal function of a man in his 20s.

9:17 Sørheim: - Contact with friends is described as a 5-6 cups of coffee a year. It is not normal contact.

9:17 Arntzen: - Could it indicate some improvement?

9:19 Arntzen: - It was during this period he joined the ranks and was in the Masonic Lodge?

9:19 Husby: - What I remember is that he was there on one two three meetings. In 2007 he described a few meetings.

9:20 Arntzen: - In the period from 2009-2010, describes you with a clear case of functioning and the breakthrough of psychotic delusions. You place great emphasis on the mother's descriptions. Is it possible to have a different interpretation?

9:21 Sørheim: - It is the mother says. In 2009, he was convinced he had to kill. He spoke of traitors in different categories. We believe that the responsibility for the killing is really the essence of his thoughts.

9:21 Arntzen: - You pull out the fear of infection and interested in politics. Could it have a different interpretation?

9:22 Husby: - If you fragment it, and do not see it at all, it's kind of fear of infection a symptom.

9:23 Arntzen: - The following period. You have found that his bizarre delusions covering his entire world. Why is not discovered by the team from Ila and from Dikemark under observation?

9:23 Sørheim: - We believe again that the core of his symptoms, it is that he will rule. WE have no opinion on why this has not arrived at Ila.

9:24 Arntzen: - Kringlen virtually ruled out that schizophrenia was not detected during the days of observation. Do you have any comment on that?

9:24 Sørheim: - No, I have no comment.

9:24 Husby would like to respond.

9:25 Husby: - When you have delusions of the operational and local level, it is difficult. But why they have not discovered during the observations at Ila we do not know.

9:25 Arntzen: - Have you gone into the base documentation or observation logs?

9:25 Husby: - We have not gone through the logs from day to day. It's not something we do.

9:26 Arntzen: - What you have seen is the summary and that you have heard in court?

9:26 Husby: - No.

9:26 Arntzen: - His appearance in politivahør and here. You pulled out examples, these reactions veggetative and killing tanks. Are there other sites that pull in another direction?

9:27 Husby: - It is really an interesting and comprehensive questions. The observations in court has major limitations. WE have not had a mandate or interest in talking to him in court. We believe it is a bad way to do it, in line with my views on remote diagnosis.

9:29 Husby: - It has been the lot of talk about how much he will speak in court, but it had been purely psychiatric an advantage that he could talk more in court. When he opens his mouth so see those who listen to it is wrong what comes out. Had he talked more, it would have happened. What he says when he speaks is a ready interaction.

9:29 Breivik smile when Husby said that people realize there is something wrong, "when Breivik opens his mouth."

9:30 Husby: - When you sit in a conversation is a little different things that one reacts to and tries to find answers to, but it is not done here. So the answer here, we know not. I can say something briefly about what we perceive to be changed, it is his expression. There has been much talk about what is pompous. I have not talked to him after the abolition of press censorship. It is clear that he is not stupid, so he takes to himself the talk of his own thought.

9:31 Husby: - He still can not open microphone to show any remorse. But what he has though, it is obvious, it is that there are some things that are purely tactical stupid to say. The silly or stupid things he has said, we see a turn on. There, he has changed. But the interior the ideas he has not changed.

9:32 Arntzen: - His explanation had various phases. He was intensely examined by the prosecution. How did he do?

9:33 Husby: - He is quite stereotyped. He goes back to the the topics he will discuss and repeat it. He is not so susceptible that the questions posed. With all due respect for the prosecution ask the way, but it is a forum and a form that makes it difficult to obtain psychiatric nuances than if they had been in a smaller congregation to follow been there. But it is no different what we have observed there. His genuine thoughts are not changed.

9:34 Sørheim: - We summarized yesterday that the core elements in his delusion is that he will save us in the struggle between good and evil.

9:34 Arntzen: - Are there other aspects that can pull in another direction?

9:35 Sørheim: - The design is different in different situations. He says things in other ways. He uses, for example, not so much numbers. You are right that he seems different when he talks now than when we spoke with him earlier, but we have not changed the perception.

9:35 Arntzen: - When you observed him, he indicated that he would be known sane?

9:35 Sørheim: - From the second-last call he was convinced of it.

9:37 Arntzen: - On the first part of 2012 it was the defense still in doubt about what one would argue on. If this was an unsettled situation at the observation position, this could be that he wanted to appear to be mad?

9:38 Sørheim: - As I said we were built on the theme of accountability, but it was something he took up. We never take it up in conversations. The possibility that he plays ill is something we always consider. But what we see as very unlikely here. The possibility that he will manage to retain all the details about what he is a member of, etc. But this is something we have considered, yes.

9:39 Arntzen: - Regarding diagnostic criteria. Are there any other options where they are met?

9:39 Arntzen: - What he thinks black / white. Could it be an expression of a generalization?

9:40 Sørheim: - Yes, that's it.

9:40 Arntzen: - Persistent bizarre delusions. That he participates in a civil war and decides who will live and die. Can you say more about that?

9:41 Arntzen: - It's in the criteria that should be completely impossible.

9:41 Sørheim: - The word bizarre're here for a derailment. Criteria is that it should be unlikely. And we believe that having a duty to decide who shall live and die, is impossible.

9:42 Husby: - It is absolutely impossible that he should have acquired the right to kill.

9:42 Sørheim: - He is the repeated return to this with the Knights Templar organization. How divisions took place and that it was his responsibility to stand for this. And we can not see that he has such a responsibility.

9:43 Arntzen: - How you wonder that. Is this something he has in common with other extreme right and must be interpreted in a wider context?

9:43 Breivik shakes his head while Sørheim goods.

9:43 Sørheim: - I think it is important that the right to do it. We can not psychiatric seen that this function judge he believes to have been completely impossible.

9:43 Sørheim: - That it is his role to decide who shall live and die, is the delusion of his.

9:44 Arntzen: - The question is whether he is in the company of other terrorists who act like they have the right to kill. What is the difference between him and others, it is the way he puts it on?

9:45 Sørheim: - It is exactly the content of his descriptions and his own role in it, is what has filled his time also in talks with us.

9:45 Husby: - It is worth noting that the right wing community has repudiated Breivik.

9:45 Husby breivik laughing while talking about Fjordman.

9:46 Arntzen: - Neologismebegrepet. Although the concepts found in the net, do you think are neologisms that he uses in his delusional universe?

9:46 Sørheim: - Yes, the latter is most important. Combined with the fact that we did not know the words before and he said he had made them.

9:46 Arntzen: - If you look at the words used in a right-wing context, you will still argue that it's neologisms?

9:47 Sørheim: - We must say that this was what we assumed. We believe that the continued use of concepts especially about his KT network, is the delusion of his. But some of these neologisms.

9:47 Husby: - One of the expert witnesses said that it was not clear which word was or not. That it was unclear if there was someone who was not in use. That it was unclear how these words were destined to be.

9:48 Sørheim: - As I said, I think that we adhere to the explanation we have of it. The words used in an incomprehensible way.

9:48 Arntzen: - If he were to be transferred to forced mental health care, what treatments do you recommend?

9:49 Sørheim: - We did not go through that part of the statement yesterday, which we've written a lot about. There is no doubt that it is difficult to medicate delusions. You will have a difficult management task ahead of him.

9:49 Arntzen: - Do you think he can profit from anti-psychotic medication?

9:49 Sørheim: - We're treating optimists and believe it, yes. It's often the case that treatment for schizophrenia helps.

9:50 Breivik smile when Sørheim says that one can come to having to forcibly medicate using the spray.

9:51 Husby: - It can be seen if one treats is often that affect the level of change. One is for example less angry. What one often sees at first is that the delusional content does not change, but there will be less suspicious.

9:52 Husby: - There are many who have lived with delusions for many years before being posted.

9:52 Husby cites as a patient.

9:53 The prosecutor takes over the questioning.

9:53 Sørheim: - It is important to say that we are treating optimistic in the sense that there are many medications to choose from.

9:54 Prosecutors Svein Holden: - Re firmurerlosjen. The first meeting is January 2006. He received third degree 16 september 2009.

9:54 Holden: - No other meetings than Grade meetings.

9:55 Holden: - This independence has been up. We have seen that the assumption of the mandate is that you make independent assessments. How have you worked with this perspective in mind?

9:56 Husby: - In the ordinary way in relation to how we work, except that we only had a separate agreement with him. We agreed in advance about what topics we should have, but we did it often. It was because he came back to the special theme time and again.

9:57 Husby: - We would like to speak with him and therefore we would not be too structured. When we came out of conversations we talked a bit about how it would work before we went to our each.

9:57 Holden: - After you went to their each. What did you do then? Listed down your thoughts from the meeting?

9:58 Husby: - Yes, I noted down. It's a little different for how to do it. I note the less than my colleague. It was huge with supporting documents, including interviews, we had to go through.

9:58 Holden: - If you were to combine the notes in the declaration. Tell us a bit about the process.

9:58 Sørheim: - It has worked so that I have noted grossly and submitted by mail to my colleague who has filled with his notes.

9:58 Holden: - Has there been a lot of fills and discussions along the way?

9:59 Sørheim: - After one of the conversations we sat down and discussed what we had seen and heard.

9:59 Holden: - You've even touched this with joint calls. There has been considerable criticism directed that when an observation is not as independent. Have you thought about it?

10:00 Sørheim: - We have reflected on it. But now it was the case that Ila said we had to use glass. So we sat together. It became a leading premise.

10:00 Holden: - Was it that Ilas orders you were carrying the premise, or were there other things that also were important?

10:02 Husby: - When we started these discussions, there was nothing that was prepared. It was not clarified anything before we begin. It was totally unacceptable to have separate conversations when we started. For we would not use glass.

10:03 Holden: - The justification of the statement seems somewhat fuller. Here it is a premise that you after two calls either emotionally or intelektuelt carry calls alone.

10:03 Husby: - Yes .. er .. I think whoever does not, at the time we started talks, it was extremely demanding. No one has ever seen anything like it before. Only the coordination between Ila and the police was a full time job - put a little on the tip.

10:04 Husby - I was just running in my head of sitting there in that context. We eventually managed to get into a pattern where we were relieving each other.

10:05 Sørheim: - I think it's important to be open on the conversations in the beginning was marked by uncertainty at all. If he was dangerous. Generally, in psychiatry is to be more if it can be dangerous. This was a person who had killed 77 people. We won a lot of going into two pieces.

10:05 Holden: - Breivik has even argued that their emotional point of view has influenced the assessment of him?

10:06 Husby: - It sounded like the more that it was introduced from a professional. He was not inside of it when we met him. But I think that when we were there, we were as professional as we possibly could be.

10:07 Husby: - Observanden enjoyed the conversations we had. There was no emotional vibrations in the talks that made it difficult.

10:08 Sørheim: - I think I said that since 2006 we have had various experts, but worked together several times.

10:08 Holden: - It has been pointed out that you have worked so many times that it will make you less independent of each other. A newspaper had contacted a Commission that you had been around 50 cases together since 2002.

10:08 Sørheim: - What can we say about it. I think we've been thinking independently. It is the independence of the assessment that is important.

10:09 Holden: - Can there be a parhestene syndrome? Could there be something in it so that you become less independent?

10:09 Sørheim: - It's probably like that one can argue that approaching each other. No one knows better how the other is and stands for. I'm totally in for that I am independent.

10:10 Husby: - the Sørheim have been doing this full time in some years, while I have made it part time. But the appointment has come from the police, and it is not we who have asked about this, there are prosecutors who ask us.

10:10 Holden: - It is not those who apply for a job, but the prosecuting authority proposes you.

10:10 Husby: - We will only be telephoned and asked to take the assignment. Often we do not know who we do it together right away.

10:11 Holden: - Status Present is done jointly. Why this way?

10:11 Sørheim: - We'd decided to wait to decide on the data obtained represented the symptoms.

10:11 Holden: - Have you considered whether you missed any differences of opinion by doing this?

10:12 Hsuby: - It was something we had decided, but I would like to have done this again in a different way.

10:12 Holden: - What was the reason why you think so?

10:12 Husby: - Having had two different status present is something we could have done.

10:13 Holden: - The Commission explained that he had the feel of a halo effect when he read their statements. At the initial status of present-statements that you had taken a stand.

10:13 Husby - I think it was vice versa.

10:14 Holden: - Is there a weakness in the declaration?

10:14 Sørheim: - Can you define it?

10:14 Holden: - Provides the less reason to have confidence in these vuderingene? It is the first state present after 22 July.

10:15 Sørheim: - Our experience was that he appeared similar in these conversations. There was very little change, more content, but little change. So I do not think that the present status similar to repeatedly do something wrong.

10:15 Husby - I do not think it has some crucial conclusion.

10:15 Holden: - Why not?

10:15 Holden: - There are nuances that have not come out well enough. What is written there is just as valid for it.

10:16 Holden: - You have a number of conversations with Breivik and talked with his mother. You have taken quotes. How have you worked to ensure that these quotes are correct?

10:17 Sørheim: - We were not inside at the thought of taking up these conversations on tape. As is the practice. I write down what is being said. It's just simple terms that will be rendered in italics.

10:17 Holden: - This has relevance. Breivik has argued that much of what is stated in the declaration is an error.

10:17 Sørheim: - To this I can only say that we are presenting this as it was, so get right to consider the evidence strength.

10:18 Husby: - The fact that he says that there should be a political wall to manipulate the case. Then it's up to the court to decide who is telling the truth. We have no personal agenda or make something in this matter in relation to other matters. We can only point to our name and reputation.

10:19 Holden: - There are several key areas, a significant difference in what you have written and what Breivik has held up in court. You write that the idea of murder was in 2009. He believes that this would considerably earlier. Do you have any thoughts on why there has been such a meaningful difference?

10:19 Sørheim: - I do not think we should try to guess why, but we have written so it was said then, so will the court consider the evidence.

10:20 Arntzen Judge decides that the right pauses until 1040.

10:39 The experts and the prosecutor Holden is in place in the courtroom.

10:43 Defender Vibeke Hein Bæra talk to the prosecutor Holden.

10:48 The court should have started up again at 1040, but all the players are so far not in place in court.

10:49 Prosecutors and defenders Holden Green and Bæra talking to experts and Husby Sørheim.

10:52 Attorney General Tor-Aksel Busch told TV 2 that they will not lay down before a statement of the last few days.

10:53 This is done in collaboration between the Public Prosecutor and State Counsel, says Busch to TV 2

10:55 The extended break due to Busch said that the court looks at some confidentiality issues. Breivik's mother requested that known yesterday that information about her would be behind closed doors. This was not the right result.

11:02 The court has had pause for 40 minutes. It is not known how long the pause will last.

11:05 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh and counsel Frode Elgesem enters the room.

11:06 The defender Geir Lippestad has entered.

11:09 The defendant Anders Breivik Behring introduced into the hall.

11:10 Holden, Lippestad, Engh and carry a conversation.

11:11 Breivik led out of the courtroom.

11:12 The judges arrive.

11:12 The court is set.

11:13 Arntzen: - We clarify a question about the mother around confidentiality information. It is not known, but the reason for the delay.

11:13 Breivik are in place in the dock.

11:13 Holden: - Explain to us a little about the test that was performed.

11:14 Sørheim: - Once we have chosen to make such tests as it is a supplement to the diagnosis. There are many tools in psychiatry, but we have concentrated it is about the diagnostic questions.

11:15 Sørheim explains how this test is constructed.

11:15 Sørheim say they've done it that way this test proposes.

11:15 Holden: - What is the foundation that he gets a score of 22 and 23?

11:17 Sørheim: - We believe that the core symptom of observanden is his conviction that he can decide over life and death. It scored the No. 2 is that he is dangerous to others. There is also an additional comment, that there are reasons for that Breivik is under strict supervision and that there is a risk of recurrence.

11:17 Psychiatry conducted a test on the GAF Breivik.

11:18 Breivik smiles while Sørheim say it is he who has kept himself alive, but his courage.

11:18 Sørheim: - We have scored him 23 He is unable to work. It is he who has remained alive, it is practically his mother. He was dependent on the mother's assets. He has not been working for five years. We can not see anything to indicate normal operation.

11:18 Sørheim: - We believe that from 2010 it is precisely what has happened.

11:18 Holden: - In light of all the criticism on these points. Would you have scored higher, he today?

11:18 Sørheim: - No.

11:19 Husby: - If one score in it so it does not fit in this case. When you kill 77 people, one is so far down the spectrum you get.

11:20 Holden: - Melle called PANS-test?

11:20 Sørheim: - I think that made sense. But having said that, I recall that we had a clear idea of what tools we should use. We had not ruled out, but we chose to only use diagnostic tools. But it could have been sensible.

11:21 Holden: - Did the pressure you something about the conclusion you should fall down on? Did you feel any pressure about what the conclusion should be?

11:21 Husby: - Absolutely not.

11:21 Husby: - We thought that we had an idea of what was to come when we concluded that he was psychotic. When we worked on this, we were alone. Only a few meetings with the police.

11:22 Husby: - But we knew it was going to be problematic when we came to the conclusion, but it did not affect us.

11:23 Holden: - Diagnostic Questions. First, we look paranoid schizophrenia. Has your perception of what is his delusion changed at any time?

11:23 Sørheim: - No, the core of his delusion is his perceived responsibility to determine who should live and die. After the introductory speech of Breivik here in court, he entered that this was the struggle against evil and good and not about him. There is no reason to believe him on this.

11:24 Husby: - We're talking about this yesterday too, how he stands here.

11:25 Holden: - You have taken two basic criteria, where there is enough that you can find one is satisfied. You say that the conditions are fulfilled by the fact that he knows what others think.

11:25 Sørheim: - We believe in the delusion that it is leading to what he thinks. We still believe that.

11:26 Holden: - In criterion d) it is exemplified that he has an idea that he is participating in a civil war where he is responsible for deciding who should live and die, and expect to power in Europe.

11:27 Sørheim: - The core of this is that he believes he has the responsibility to decide over life and death. He talked all about this civil war, when we talked to him, but we have not heard so much about in court. But he has not elaborated on this in court.

11:27 Holden: - An important point from a lawyer's point of view you have taken in KT in delusional disorder here in court, it seems we are not in writing.

11:28 Sørheim: - We deal now that this is a non-existing organization, but we did not then.

11:28 Holden: - Does this mean that you Breivik think that KT exist?

11:29 Sørheim: - We have no doubt about it. When we talked to him he was very concerned about this. It was what he wanted to talk about. Since we did not know more about this, so we had to go on the basis that this was the reality for him.

11:30 Husby: - When we sat, we got the clinician's sense that this was the emotion he described within. When the delusions he describes from the inside, it's something you're in. It turns out verbally and how to react with emotion. He was activated and stimulated when he talked about it.

11:30 Holden: - If it is true that he is overflowing with it, how is it then that a psychologist expert in direct question believes that Breivik lying.

11:30 Sørheim: - I will not make any assessment of other testimony.

11:30 Husby: - It would rather not know.

11:31 Husby - I will not speculate on what he has seen or not seen.

11:31 Husby: - It was said that it was not talked about the Knights Templar. I think maybe it was Flikke who mentioned it. That they did not talk about it.

11:32 Holden: - What if KT drops? So the court is convinced that KT can exist as Breivik describes ...

11:32 Husby: - We're back in our declaration. We think nothing of it exist or not.

11:32 Holden: - Although the court will be able to reach the point of view that maybe KT exist, it has no effect on psychosis as you see it?

11:32 Sørheim: - No, we have not included it as a core element in our description.

11:33 Judge Arntzen: - Was it in conversation with Breivik unclear whether there were other members of KT?

11:34 Husby: - Yes, it is from the compendium. Basically that means we have noted that he was concerned about it. We had no reason to consider whether the organization existed.

11:34 Arntzen: - The emergence during the conversation with Breivik that he was in doubt?

11:34 Husby: - No, it was not at any time.

11:35 Holden: - Do you have a further understanding of what is "completely impossible" than that of other witnesses?

11:36 Sørheim: - Again, I think we refrain to say anything about what witnesses have said. As I said, is not used that term in the ICD 10. To blink out targets and take life, is very unlikely.

11:36 Holden: - Torgersen used expressions that were characterized by science fiction?

11:36 Sørheim: - I can not say anything other than that it's easy to flash out science fiction. For example, the arm has changed places. There is no such thing here.

11:37 Holden: - In the alternate bay, you have the f-group reported that it met by intermittent perseveration, associative speech and neologisms?

11:37 Sørheim: - Yes, that's what it says. We think that the writing could have been done differently.

11:38 Holden: - Are any of these findings are more robust than others?

11:38 Sørheim: - No, we believe, that it is very clear that he did this. Neologisms, we have visited several times and the perception we have of that concept. It might not get more space than it deserves.

11:39 Holden: - You have written that his speech is not disturbed, on the other hand it says that the speech has changed?

11:39 Sørheim: - Now we discuss the more things at once.

11:40 Holden: - Should not the speech have the same characteristics of diagnosis regardless of discussing?

11:41 Sørheim: - In terms of differentiation. We believe that this is a paranoid production and not one of the other subgroups. There is no question of any ordsalat, he uses the words of an opinion.

11:42 Sørheim reads the criteria for how to make the diagnosis.

11:43 Holden: - neologisms. You restored a definition is that an existing word takes on a different meaning. It is a little odd to observe is that the disagreement is about this. There are many who believe that you have made a mistake regarding neologisms. You build on a different understanding than most psychiatrists?

11:44 Holden: - Even if we put their understanding, the question is whether the words are incomprehensible to others. One of the witnesses have said that one of the words you pointed out, was good and enlightening.

11:45 Holden: - Negative symptoms, as exemplified by the pronounced flattening of affect. It keeps you from Breivik, it has some distinctive features?

11:47 Holden read the statement.

11:48 Sørheim: - I am quite sure that the two other experts can tell what they meant. I refrain from commenting on this. But empathy failure are not talking about not knowing what to do but to feel something about it.

11:49 Sørheim: - It is important to know is that empathy is considered a constant size of a person that has been developed in teens. Affektavflating is something you incurred later in life. The two concepts belong to two different categories.

11:49 Husby read a definition of affektavflating: - So, people can think of who it fit?

11:50 Holden: - I have left an hour of questioning. This is the case important. The ambition is to let the experts touching most points it has been criticized. Have hope that the need for supplemental questions will not be too big.

11:51 Holden: - If we look at the censured, have you described the symptoms have been present for more than six months; function fall of social, practical and economic collapse.

11:52 Sørheim: - Yes, it is as it stands. A distinctive feature anyway. This is not as relevant as we come in the next section to what is paranoid schizophrenia.

11:52 Holden: - Since it is a censured for simple schizophrenia. Why do you have it?

11:53 Sørheim: - We have gone through all the cards and well. We always do.

11:53 Sørheim explains the differences between the two different diagnoses.

11:53 The court takes a lunch break at 1230.

12:30 Court participants are beginning to find their place in Courtroom 250

12:33 Coordinating counsel Mette Yvonne Larsen says that they are likely going to put questions to the experts for several hours.

12:34 Prosecutors Holden has said he expects to spend an hour on their remaining questions.

12:34 Aid lawyers have received many questions that family members and survivors want to be the experts.

12:34 The defendant Breivik is led into the courtroom.

12:35 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh goes into the back room to the judges.

12:35 Engh is back in the courtroom.

12:36 The judges arrive. The court is set.

12:38 Judge Arntzen explains the situation around closed doors and the minutes ban. Applicable documents about mother's health situation. Adds the minutes of the prohibition of the actual reading from documents dealing with the mother or documents that disclose the content.

12:39 Holden: - Tell us how you experienced the call with her mother?

12:40 Sørheim: - We explained to the mother what we wanted and that this information would be used in court.

12:41 Husby said that they interpreted the mother but that they would obtain information about Breivik.

12:42 Husby: - A diagnostic process of observanden based on several things. It has been emphasized by many witnesses with expertise that is important komparente information. And information from the mother who lived with him is important. We have placed great emphasis on.

12:42 Husby said that if they had experienced her mother as unreliable, they had noted the statement.

12:43 Holden: - Knights Templar. There have been questions about how Breivik has responded here in court when the topic KT has been up. Have you made any observations on how he reacted?

12:44 Sørheim: - I do not think we can provide the complete answer. The other testimony must stand for itself, but I would not say that there is no clear blueprint of what psychosis is. People react in different ways.

12:44 Sørheim: - We have noted that observanden not want to talk much about this. He has been very little interest in talking about details of the Knights Templar.

12:45 Sørheim: - No, again. We are asked to make an assessment from the survey period. When he spoke about this at every possible opportunity. We have emphasized.

12:45 Holden: - You were in that Breivik has been revised downwards on several points. KT is less pompous, he's only a foot soldier and you have misunderstood what the civil war. Is such a blur consistent with the diagnosis you have made?

12:46 Sørheim: - We were just barely inside the opening remarks. There is no doubt that observanden have understood what he should say.

12:47 Sørheim: - We still believe that he is in his basic idea. He appears with a perceived authority that we think are unchanged. It could also be that he has other thoughts that occupy him for hours.

12:47 Husby: - Delusions may have multiple dimensions. There is a difference between grandositet and persecution. Patients with grandiose talk more. With all the criteria you may be in schizophrenia, the symptoms vary. My impression is that his grandiose ideas were more unchallenged when we talked to him.

12:48 Husby: - You can still have the basic delusion of who shall live and who should die.

12:48 Breivik shakes his head while talking Husby.

12:49 Husby: - He has since learned that 99 percent of those who have heard it feel weird, strange and ridiculous. It goes into his way of functioning.

12:49 Holden: - Several people have pointed out that Breivik's stamina is not consistent with the diagnosis you have set.

12:50 Sørheim: - We do not find that there are some differences there. It also applies to a not insignificant group of others.

12:50 Holden: - It is argued by some that it is odd that the psychotic person will be able to act in the following manner - that he saved a person Utøya. Some say that a person in the psychosis would not be able to?

12:50 Sørheim: - I do not think we can help you.

12:51 Husby: - There is no ressonement it.

12:51 Holden: - You described his symptoms as a robust finding. What do you mean by this?

12:51 Holden: - Does the popular sense that you are extra safe?

12:51 Sørheim explain the criteria they have gone after.

12:52 Sørheim: - No, it's a word you use.

12:52 Holden: - When you made the decision that he had this diagnosis?

12:52 Sørheim:-When it comes to diagnosis, and collect Mon data until it is safe. We needed 12 to 13 calls before we felt safe enough.

12:53 Holden: - The judge asked to place the observations of others. You are a little reluctant to answer the kind of questions, but we know that employees of Ila, prison service, DPS Bærum, staff from Dikemark and new experts - they do not psychosis.

12:53 Sørheim: - I will not try me on any assessment of their testimony. We saw observanden at a different time.

12:53 Holden: - Could there be other causes than time?

12:54 Husby: - It is difficult to speculate. We do not know the content of the conversations. It's hard to say why others have not seen anything.

12:54 Holden: - Malt said that in order to uncover a delusional disorder, you have to drill in the subject. Is that right?

12:55 Sørheim: - It was not so necessary to drill for us, it was more like turning on the faucet so flooded it.

12:55 Husby: - When you get your patients in a psychiatric emergency department is often in patients with delusions that are unable to say anything, whereas individuals with grandiose delusions can talk like a waterfall. The picture can vary widely.

12:56 Husby: - We did not have to go deeper into the conversations.

12:57 Sørheim: - WE can not help you with this.

12:57 Holden: - Is Breivik psychotic today?

12:57 Husby: - We can not answer safely. I will not start with this remote diagnostics as others have done. He has not talked much, but his comments are partly peculiar that makes people shake their heads. As if he is not on the same plane.

12:58 Holden: - Do you have examples of uttaleler you have reacted?

12:58 Husby: - An example is the why he should save some lives, and when he replied that it was because he had to charge.

12:59 Sørheim: - He believes that he has acted in full right, and this is what he has told the court.

12:59 Holden: - We leave the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. You have referred to paranoid psychosis.

12:59 Holden: - Why is not this an appropriate diagnosis in their opinion?

13:00 Sørheim: - We believe that it is appropriate and, therefore, we have discussed it. But we believe that the symptoms are not met.

13:00 Sørheim rattles off what Breivik has spent time before the attacks.

13:01 Sørheim: - His description of the contact with these friends. When he describes this as cover, then saying something about what he thinks.

13:01 Sørheim reads from the so-called criteria in ICD 10.

13:02 Breivik notes while testifying before the committee.

13:02 Sørheim: - We thought that these criteria were not met.

13:02 Holden: - Affektavflatningen. Can it be other reasons?

13:02 Sørheim: - Not that I know of.

13:03 Holden: - I think it was Melle said that the Commission had thought about "all falls" when it comes to schizophrenia, one falls down on psychosis.

13:03 Sørheim: - Yes, Melle has the account of it. But we see it as a very relevant discussion, but we do not mean that it right here.

13:04 Holden promotes the questions where the answer may be subject minutes of the ban. He asks about developmental disorders.

13:04 Sørheim: - Yes, that means we can. I can read the introduction to this chapter in ICD 10.

13:06 Sørheim: - In the introduction to this chapter called developmental disorders as it is said that they have the following common features. That it starts in childhood and that there is a constant recurrence characterized for many mental disorders.

13:07 Sørheim references from data from interviews with Breivik's mother, stepmother and friends.

13:08 Sørheim: - I believe the best Colored explain their views, but we must be able to say that if you compensate so well that no one noticed it. Some may have noticed it, so we maintain that he had no developmental problems throughout their childhood.

13:08 Holden: - If we assume that he has Asperger, it has some bearing on whether he is psychotic or not?

13:08 Sørheim: - Asperger's is not sufficient to trigger some of the concepts.

13:08 Holden: - Is it problematic to put a diagnosis of schizophrenia, if he has Asperger?

13:09 Sørheim: - I think wisely Melle was on that one has a dianostisk hierarchy. I think since we have concluded the other way. We have no evidence that it would be a premise.

13:09 Sørheim: - If he has had symptoms like no one has seen have been there, it's clear that he can develop schizophrenia.

13:10 Holden explains the relationship between schizophrenia and Asperger in the American DSM system.

13:10 Sørheim: - That's what I was trying to say with that one has a hierarchical structure.

13:11 Holden: - Is there a similar relationship between Asperger and paranoid psychosis?

13:11 Sørheim: - It is exactly the same. One can in theory incur all in addition to a developmental disorder that has come before.

13:12 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh requesting an explanation regarding the significance of affektsavflatning.

13:12 Engh: - Will a dissocial personality disorder may affect a affeten?

13:13 Sørheim: - Again ... to launch the idea of what you can see a change. Affektavflatning was part of the change as we see it.

13:14 Holden: - If you develop a psychosis with delusions. What is it that makes some people make their delusions?

13:14 Sørheim: - This is just theory. This is of course no one knows. It has nothing organic substrate of schizophrenia.

13:16 Sørheim explains how the theory is this.

13:16 Engh: - You interpret his withdrawal as a disease. If you could see right away by paranoid psychosis?

13:17 Sørheim: - People with paranoid psychosis would surely have better function. Many people can function at work, etc. Just as a consequence of their delusion cover only a small part.

13:18 Husby: - For example, if a teacher believes that Teacher Created is after him, so it can seem debilitating in the workplace, but the person might as well go home and behave normal with his wife.

13:19 Prosecutors are finished with their questions.

13:20 Defender Geir Lippestad: - When I read the two statements, I thought that part of the two results is that we have considered the fact different. Expert number two considers the political, ye violence. Is there help to determine the assessment?

13:21 Husby: - There is probably a simplification because it is a bit depending on how they operate with the concept of fact. If some of the facts also involves how we view him as you sit here. I am not the slightest doubt that Aspaas and Tørrissen have experienced what they have done. We have probably seen different things.

13:21 Husby - I'm not sure if we have used the same fact.

13:22 Husby: - The fact is simpler term for lawyers than for physicians.

13:23 Lippestad: - I start with the core of the delusion is that it is an impossible thought. We talk not with men in March. If it is not impossible it may be appropriate?

13:23 Sørheim: - Yes, again. ICD 10 does not have a definition of the word delusion. But they say it should be culturally inappropriate.

13:24 Sørheim: - You have certainly taken this in, but this was a tentative summary of what we had seen in court. But it is the declaration we build on.

13:25 Lippestad: - The core of his delusion, you have said is that he will save us all in the struggle between evil and good. Is it your or his words?

13:25 Sørheim: - This mix is definitely my words.

13:26 Lippestad: - He thinks he will save us all from doom ... He has said he believes that Muslims are trying to take over Europe. What is impossible that he sees it as his task to prevent this?

13:26 Sørheim: - Now we have not talked so much about Muslims, but we remember it so that there was talk about the battle between good and evil. It's almost verbatim.

13:26 Lippestad: - I do not know how many times I have heard he is interested in the fight against Muslims. Is it your opinion that the Muslims he will deliver us from when we are talking about a threat?

13:27 Sørheim: - We have not posted this in this understanding. He chose to summarize it this way, and we choose to believe that is what he means.

13:27 Lippestad: - Who he regards as evil, it is immaterial?

13:27 Sørheim: - Not for him, anyway. We try to concentrate on his opinion. He says that he has sacrificed himself to save us.

13:28 Lippestad: - If he had said this to prevent an invasion from March or totally unthinkable things to come, but he has said from day one that he has done this to prevent the Muslim takeover of Europe. Is there a difference or if a hedgehog is to take over Norway?

13:28 Sørheim: - As I said, we try to make a perception of his role in this. The principle of this thought the fight could have been the same.

13:29 Lippestad: - In the heart of delusion, you have assumed that his role is paramount. What are you building it? Is it true that he has said he has an overarching role?

13:30 Sørheim: - We feel good that he has said part of all this. Among other things this with Sigurd the Crusader, the KT would take over and that he would be part of it. That he is a idelogisk guiding star, that he is judge. We have numerous examples of it.

13:30 Lippestad: - What I missed is that he has said early in the police interrogation that he was a foot soldier. Where in their judgment, you have admitted that he sees himself as a leader. Have you considered it at all?

13:31 Sørheim: - All of these examples was how he led.

13:32 Lippestad: - I refer to the 18 interrogation October. He says a lot about the conversation with Husby and Sørheim. He says that what is described in the compendium is a glossy picture for recruitment purposes. He also said he discussed a future takeover. Accused said it was a minor reason why he came to have a leadership role, questions from the experts.

13:33 Breivik smiles, Lippestad reads from police interrogations.

13:33 Lippestad: - He said in October that it was 2% 2% chance that he would become regent. He said he thought Husby was satisfied.

13:34 Lippestad: - This explanation, you have probably read. How have you evaluated it against what you have assumed that you have said that he will have an overriding role. Husby?

13:35 Husby - I do not remember that I have read it, but remember when we talked to him he ran over by the grandeur performances. I have concentrated on what we have been presented in talks and not seen what he has said to others. I remember we talked about the percentages and that he noticed it.

13:36 Lippestad: - Interest methodically. These are documents that you have read and heard and seen on the interrogations. Had it been a force if one of the statement discussed that he saw himself as a foot soldier?

13:36 Sørheim: - I want to comment on it. We are asked to examine observandens condition during and after the action time.

13:37 Lippestad: - In the first interrogation after Utøya, where he says that some of the requirements, he comes with the formalities. He makes it of formality reasons. From what I understand, he understands that it is nonsense, but do it of formality reasons. Should you have seen that he saw himself as a foot soldier?

13:38 Sørheim: - Do you think that we should consider whether he just kidding? It is the sum of all the details about this that has overwhelmed us.

13:39 Lippestad: - I try to go into the core of the delusion that you have given us. That the overall position can not I vote with the evidence in court. Where are you from? Can you have interpreted it differently than what is fact?

13:39 Sørheim: - Where we are from is well documented thoroughly. It is from conversations with him. Everything that he is the commander that he can decide who can live and die ...

13:39 Lippestad: - When you get the police statement and see that he says something else. Should you not then reflect on it?

13:40 Husby - I do not think he called himself when the foot soldier. He was not like that in his delusional world that he was going to be regent, he was not there then. But that he had authority to kill. During the entire period we observed him, he did not depart from that he had the right to kill.

13:41 Husby - I do not remember what he said about it taking over, but I think it is not important.

13:41 Lippestad: - In the sentence we have spoken several times, is it important?

13:41 Hsuby: - It is the sum of his perception of himself in that period.

13:41 Lippestad: - Would you say that in court has explained that he has a superior position, or is it something he has changed?

13:42 Sørheim: - He has not talked about him as a judge in this court, but he is standing firm in that he was entitled to do what he did.

13:42 Lippestad: - Entitled to do. Who is eligible to commit murder, if not in a war?

13:43 Husby: - No, certainly not any sense. This is something philosophical that has nothing to do in this case.

13:43 Husby said that this case is much more complex than they previously had.

13:44 Lippestad: - You say that he has a responsibility that is rooted. So that he feels entitled to decide who should live or die. What mass killing men who decide to take life, someone who has legitimacy to it?

13:45 Husby: - No, how should I respond to it '. The categorical answer is no.

13:45 Sørheim: - There is no one who has the right to decide who should live and die. The fact that he says he has identified the real traitors and that they shall die.

13:46 Lippestad: - Is he alone in defining the foreign minister, prime minister and others traitors?

13:46 Sørheim: - As we read out yesterday, he has talked about that to single out and kill these traitors was a heavy responsibility, but that he sacrificed himself and did it.

13:46 Lippestad: - Is it important for KT network exist?

13:47 Sørheim: - For us it is not important. About KT network exists or not there had still been alarming when he talked about the powers he had to decide over life and death.

13:47 Lippestad: - You add a premise that there is a non-existent organization.

13:47 Lippestad: - Is it an impossibility that it exists?

13:47 Sørheim: - No, it's not an impossibility.

13:48 Husby: - But that one concludes that it is non-existent is not across our conclusion.

13:49 Husby: - It is reassuring to believe it to be able to decide over life and death.

13:49 Lippestad: - If we look at it as possible, we must consider. If there were four men who met in London in 2002 and made it Breivik says - that they will fight against the Muslims take over Europe. Would this definition be in a different light then?

13:50 Husby: - The investigation which the police have done is enough for us. Regardless, the police cut off enough for us.

13:50 Lippestad: - It must be impossible for it to be a bizarre delusion. But one can rule out purely diagnostic and discussed?

13:51 Sørheim: - What is here is not that he did not hit anyone in London, but the delusion is that he should be able to decide who shall live and die.

13:51 Lippestad: - If he has a mandate from this network ...

13:51 Lippestad: - What is the terrorist network that has a real mandate to decide whether to blow up in a square?

13:52 Sørheim: - I think it's important that we stick to the medical part of this. How terrorists select targets, is not our field. It observanden has told of his mandate is psychotic features.

13:53 Lippestad: - I do not quite understand. Speaking, based on medical terms that can not be voted. I put forward the hypothesis: Four men meet gives a mandate to kill and he conducts it?

13:53 Lippestad: - Is it not enough to determine if it is impossible that it could have happened?

13:54 Sørheim: - Well, then you must make an assessment as to how real is it that these four people meeting could provide such a Monday. It is quite clear that this responsibility to decide over life and death, he has not.

13:55 Husby: - This show we see that he can determine, is psychotic.

13:55 Lippestad: - I agree that if he had killed 100,000 men vertices at Holmenkollen Sunday. But he goes to the government quarter and the AUF, that is a political goal. How do you rate the selection of targets, it has some significance? He says he has a political agenda.

13:56 Husby: - The content of the delusion is that he shall be chosen. In his delusional world, he has placed this in the right radical. This is only a Clothing in the delusion.

13:57 Lippestad: - If we envisage Breivik's life, he begins an early interest in politics. He has regularly come up with political post on the internet. You mentioned that the psychosis may come from 2006-2007. What is changing? He has been against immigration since he was young.

13:58 Sørheim: - Where I want to say that, having a radical political action or idea is not to have a psychosis. But having such an interest does not mean he does not develop a psychosis.

13:59 Judge Arntzen: - You write that he has a responsibility and a calling. There are no facts, there is a description of a position. Is it to decide who shall live and dead, is not that the moral sense?

14:00 Sørheim: - The way we see it, there is no one who has the responsibility to say whether someone should live or die.

14:00 Arntzen: - There are many people who take responsibility for who should live and death. In war and capital punishment.

14:00 Arntzen: - What is it that makes it an impossible delusion?

14:00 Sørheim: - For instance, with war ... it is absolutely impossible that he was at home in his bedroom could decide who should live and die.

14:01 Arntzen: - terrorist actions could be justified ideologically. Is not that an example of a call?

14:01 Sørheim: - I think we take a simpler starting point than the referee. But our point is that he sat alone in the deepest earnest thought much about who should live and die.

14:01 Arntzen: - People kill for various reasons.

14:01 Court takes break to 14.15.

14:17 Court actors have so far not taken their seats in Courtroom 250 after the break.

14:19 The defendant is brought into court.

14:21 The court is set.

14:22 Lippestad: - That he sees that he has a right to decide who shall live and die. Is it true that he understands that it is wrong against the rules and standards we have in Norway, Husby?

14:23 Husby: - Without having to kverulere it, I think actually that it is difficult to answer. But bad as in the sense of something that would give repentance, no. That is not allowed to kill each other: Yes.

14:23 Lippestad: - He understands that it is wrong to kill?

14:23 Husby: - That it is wrong for him is what separates him from others.

14:23 Lippestad: - Is not claim to be punished, that you do not know that you have done something wrong?

14:24 Sørheim: - It's the medical principle that is leading in Norway. If you have a severe enough condition so it is what is leading. If the condition is severe enough, it is the one you have tried to unaccountable safety provision.

14:24 Lippestad: - Because he did not show remorse, we agree. Already from the time he was finished with the murders, he called police to surrender. Is it in their eyes that he understood that it was wrong?

14:25 Sørheim: - Our experience is that when he talked to us about what he had done, so he did not see it as an offense because it was allowed for him.

14:25 Husby: - It is an important point.

14:25 Lippestad: - How is he from any terrorist that are killing because they believe they have a case that justifies the means?

14:26 Sørheim: - There, I think we must answer again that terrorism is not our field. We can only talk about the medical criteria he meets.

14:26 Lippestad: - Should it when you talk about something is impossible, when considering if you have a right or not right, one should discuss or set as a possibility that a terrorist act?

14:26 Sørheim: - We have not gone BRAZZY the political message and made some reviews of it at all.

14:27 Lippestad: - As far as I understand is the difference between statements that there is vuderte against political, as you just looked at the medical.

14:28 Lippestad: - This malfunction. I heard somewhere that it almost was the mother who had kept him alive. What I'm wondering if you've considered is after he moved to the farm, how do you view his disability as he lived alone on the farm?

14:29 Sørheim: - Just this with clothes, but he said he bought new clothes ... there is no doubt that observanden failed to act, among other things, to produce a bomb. But we see this as part of the delusion.

14:29 Lippestad: - When he lived on the farm. Who supported him?

14:29 Sørheim: - He was living well on credit cards?

14:30 Sørheim: - It is possible the reading of the statement, but what he told us that the action had to happen right then because he began to run out of money.

14:30 Lippestad: - Did anyone else who cared for him except that he made the self through credit cards?

14:31 Husby: - He has not worked for five years.

14:31 Lippestad: - He has had savings or living on credit.

14:31 Husby: - When we talk about nurtured by the mother, it was a bit on the tip. He is the sort of not washed by the mother.

14:32 Lippestad: - When he moves to the farm itself. There is an improvement in his level of functioning?

14:32 Husby stressed that they believe that this matter is not normal behavior from one in 28 years.

14:32 Husby: - One can not stay on the farm at Rena as an activity for a living, but I would not say that it is functioning.

14:33 Lippestad: - From having an almost full-function collapse. He must have power, go to the store, have gasoline on the car ...

14:33 Sørheim: - That operational function, we have never seen as failing. He has failed completely to the normal function.

14:34 Sørheim: - It is in relation to being able to enter into relationships for example. How well he has managed to cook and stuff, we can not say.

14:34 Husby - I do not think one can deny that he is not functioning even though he lives alone on a farm with the help of credit cards which he makes a bomb.

14:35 Lippestad: - Some people choose to devote all his life to training. Others, as in this case, playing games. He did. We have had some evidence of how difficult it is to your interaction, you talk and organize. Once you have heard about this game, it has changed their rating on it?

14:36 Sørheim: - Yes, I've got changed a little after we heard this young man who talked about it to play. He described exactly what he could not work so well in terms of commitments. As you'd expect of a man of 32 that he was unable to work by, for example, face on the job. This is no ordinary function.

14:37 Lippestad: - There are 25 pieces, which meets 4-5 times a week to play a few hours ...

14:38 Husby: - I would have flipped it. I'm no expert on such things as games, but one that goes out from the normal working life and decides to go into a virtual world where the other people who are there want to move away from relationships. I'd seen a dysfunction. The witness who spoke about this to get out of it. It was not our observand.

14:38 Lippestad: - From his standpoint, he ends up as someone who has made a successful terrorist act.

14:39 Sørheim: - It is important to keep the terrorist attack outside of here if we look at it with our psychiatrist glasses. It is this that he withdrew into himself that we think shows that he failed.

14:40 Lippestad: - Seen in retrospect, it is something you should have challenged that you did not know enough about it?

14:40 Sørheim: - We have seen some of the functions he lost. He earned the their own money, the team leader and also a representative. We have no descriptions of anything other than how he was before the malfunction occurred.

14:41 Lippestad: - He was team leader in the game. He did much the same in the virtual world as in the real world.

14:41 Husby: - My entry to the game world is partly that I have added young people who have lost in the game world. It's not that those who lose themselves in play is a single group.

14:42 Husby: - It is not a uniform group. Being in a game does not protect against disease progression.

14:43 Lippestad: - You have seen the video testimony of police testimony and talked to Breivik. How he came to the police questioning in relation to the talks with you. Was there any difference?

14:43 Husby: - Then I think well ..... It was like I recognized much of his behavior way. But under police questioning in the beginning, it was very structured and questioning way a police officer asks, is different than we ask of psychiatrists.

14:44 Husby: - It was also instances where he showed his "greatness" and blowing things up. He ran not and did not talk about radicalization as he came back every time. In interviews, he structured because the police had things they wanted through.

14:45 Husby: - It is the difference.

14:45 Lippestad: - Breivik here in court in relation to their meetings in the prison? This definition of delusion came after you had seen him in court.

14:46 Breivik smiles and shakes his head.

14:47 Sørheim: - We believe what we get back to repeatedly sums up what we mean. There is no doubt that he was in court pronounces differently to certain questions. He uses, for example, not so much the numbers as he did when we met him. The answer is that our experience of his basic theme is unchanged. While the desire to provide details on what is different.

14:48 Lippestad: - The initial status of present-assessment you make 10 august. There, said something about some symptoms. You say he has grandiose ideas, neologisms and that he stands no depresivt thought. What distinguishes these symptoms you describe 10 August from the final conclusion? Are there any new symptoms you enter, or is it the same?

14:49 Sørheim: - When doing research so you need some additional information in order to see that it was not a single case.

14:49 Lippestad: - Are any of you rejected the findings, or did you some new discoveries?

14:50 Lippestad: - Is there anything you have discarded from 10 reviews august?

14:50 Sørheim: - The murder of these thoughts was something that appeared later. The reason we chose these additional calls was something we had to try to clarify.

14:51 Sørheim: - What was present in that conversation was present there.

14:51 Lippestad: - The findings you did in the first call, it is the same as in the conclusion with some that were added later?

14:51 Sørheim: - He appeared quite similar from when we met him the first time and later.

14:52 Defender Vibeke Hein Bæra: - You said you regretted that you wrote the present status together, Husby?

14:52 Husby: - Undoes sounded serious, but I thought that we could have done it differently.

14:53 Bæra: - What impact do you think that it has had for the exercise of judgment that is not present status was recorded in real time?

14:53 Husby: - It is an interesting question. We considered some how we should proceed. To what extent we should make up an opinion, but it makes it a narrowly based start adding up. But I considered that we should wait there and be open.

14:54 Husby: - You can not get rid of the first perception of the eight call if you have already made up their minds. But it is in the tank for clarifying and wise light.

14:54 Husby: - It seems so reproduced when you do it that way.

14:55 Bæra: - In my simple world, it sounds strange that we find something, I will not be recorded.

14:56 Husby: - Had it been something of severity required response, it has something with the disorder pressure. The whole situation was that it was felt that he should not be posted then. There are no subjective overload. We were asked by police whether he should be in, but we made no judgments about it then.

14:56 Husby: - Had it been another patient, we may have considered it otherwise.

14:57 Bæra: - If you keep hold of the present status was written later and together. You said there were doubts along the way. What exactly was in doubt? Was it the same doubt, there were different things that you doubted?

14:57 Husby: - Unless I remember every detail of the discussion, so I do not know where in doubt we were. But as we discussed, we were through all the possible options it could be. Aperger we were visiting. Although I received many emails from people who thought it could be.

14:59 Husby: - We discussed a long time whether it was a psychosis. And that in that case was a paranoid psychosis. He said as much grandiose that it was the first thing we agreed on. So we discussed it with paranoid psychosis as a clear differential diagnosis before we landed on paranoid schizophrenia.

14:59 Sørheim: - That's how we did it.

14:59 Bæra: - Was a disagreement or doubt?

14:59 Sørheim: - At that time we had seen it in so many editions. We had no doubt about what we saw.

15:00 Sørheim explains how they debated and discussed different diagnoses.

15:00 Sørheim: - Affektavflatingen was so true that we could not look away from schizophrenia.

15:00 Bæra - This was a difficult case, said one of you yesterday?

15:01 Sørheim: - It is always difficult to diagnose in psychiatry. If we could take a blood test and determined that, as had been easier.

15:01 Bæra has finished questioning.

15:02 Lawyer Siv Hallgren: - If you stand in a position where one stands with the gun at a person, you have power over life and death. Do you believe that he has given up this right?

15:02 Hallgren: - It is that he is given the right, not that he does?

15:02 Sørheim: - He has used many names for it. But he says that he is given a responsibility that is burdensome but necessary. He use the word itself as judge and screed.

15:03 Hallgren: - Separating this from delusions?

15:03 Husby: - It is not all psychotic killers who have a delusion.

15:03 Hallgren: - Several witnesses testified about the statements and laughter Utøya. Attach to you this matter?

15:04 Husby: - Nothing but a grossly disturbed affect. He has an inadequate affect. His intellectual life when he goes there is no way to imagine.

15:04 Hallgren: - He calls the police and says he will surrender, but continues to kill. What do you think about it?

15:04 Sørheim: - What he said to us was that he wondered if he had killed enough. When he did not get any response from the police, so only he continued.

15:05 Husby: - He wanted to kill as many as possible. The more the better. It ended not before the police came to the island.

15:05 Hallgren: - Have you ever during the talks with him had any impression that he had no interest in his own psyche?

15:05 Husby: - No. Not at all.

15:05 Sørheim: - He said that he was in good physical condition.

15:06 Hallgren: - Have you experienced self-irony?

15:06 Sørheim: - That he laughed described a number of times. The fact that he laughed and smiled, was probably related to their own achievements.

15:07 Hallgren: - These little elusive smiles in court. How do you see them?

15:07 Husby: - Yes, lots. Smiles are stiff and inadvente. He smiles at inadequate locations. The smile is not appropriate to what is spoken about or that someone else responds. It is stiff and without any form of communication.

15:08 Hallgren: - This uniform. He would like to have it in detention. What do you think about it?

15:09 Husby - I think it is an extension of the grandiositeten as we have described in the declaration. Now he tries to trivialize the this uniform. But he thought he would go to the uniforms in court, he must have taken himself when he realized that it would appear ridiculous

15:09 Hallgren: - This delusion. You have mentioned ideas like Napoleon and Jesus. Is there any delusions that are more common than others?

15:10 Husby: - Delusions that, for example, Jesus is more common in Christian areas than for example in Islamabad. The delusions we use what is around them and what you can do something about.

15:11 Sørheim: - For example, delusions differently in the 50 60's different than they are today. It is at any time if you're into it.

15:11 Hallgren: - This policy, disease. It is possible to reconcile the two?

15:12 Husby: - I said a bit about it yesterday ... it's very rare that those with delusions create their own world. I had a patient once who had created their own universe. But it is very exceptional cases. It is your role that is dependent on delusion.

15:13 Husby: - There is no doubt that gaming will dominate psychiatry in the future.

15:13 Hallgren: - There are over 160 legal aid lawyers. There are many different perceptions of the case. There is a perception that you are rearing. Is there anything that could be shaken by their conclusion?

15:14 Sørheim: - If he had been different during our investigations, we would have considered it another way. We have concluded that this is the only result we can vouch for.

15:15 Husby: - It has had a high price to conclude it. We have been very pressured. We could not put our names on a statement that concluded otherwise. We can not go back on what we have seen, he must in that case have changed. It could theoretically happen.

15:15 Hallgren: - You have changed your opinion before, Husby?

15:15 Husby: - I've changed my opinion several times. It is right there. But it was after a hospitalization. It was one of the hardest things I've visited.

15:15 The court has to break 15.30.

15:29 Court participants are about to get into the courtroom 250

15:32 The defendant is brought into the courtroom.

15:33 The court is set.

15:34 Larsen wonder if there is any setting for how many questions she can ask.

15:35 Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: - If the court has no frame of time today? I think we soon end up at 4:30 to 5:00.

15:35 Arntzen: - When we see how far we get.

15:35 Larsen: - You confirmed atdet are over fifty cases you have had together. Have you ever disagreed between you?

15:36 Sørheim: - We have never made a declaration of dissent. Of all the cases I have been in it has only happened twice. In other.

15:36 Husby - I've never experienced it.

15:36 Larsen: - Has the forensic commission ever had an objection to their reports of significant deficiencies?

15:37 Husby: - I do not remember specifically. I do not remember if I have had significant shortcomings in some reports. Maybe I've written one two three additional declarations. Do not remember with whom.

15:37 Sørheim: - Yes, I think it might have been a three to five times where I've been asked to write additional statements. But it is far back.

15:38 Larsen: - Since you have reasons why you went into Ila in this case. You tend to do the job together, other times?

15:38 Sørheim: - Yes, it is absolute. In principle, one could do it separately, but in some cases, it opens that one can do it together.

15:38 Larsen: - Can you think of any cases where you have done surveys each of us?

15:38 Sørheim: - Yes, absolutely, but we will not mention names here.

15:39 Sørheim: - I think it is not necessary to discuss other issues here.

15:39 Larsen: - Then we are no longer on it.

15:39 Larsen: - Fast Keeps you that it was Ila who ordered you to do the job together?

15:40 Larsen: - The report states that there was a desire. Is there Ila of you who have taken this decision?

15:40 Sørheim: - The Ila said was that they envisioned conversations behind the glass wall, but it did not we. But if we should not have a glass wall, we had to do it together because they feared a hostage situation.

15:40 Sørheim: - Ila believed that if we were sitting with a glass wall so we had to sit together. They feared a hostage situation, especially for me.

15:43 Larsen questioned about the conversation with Breivik's mother.

15:44 Sørheim: - It is important to know that when we enter such a conversation, then we say what is meant by it.

15:46 Larsen now ask about the information they got from two experts Breivik's mother.

15:47 Sørheim: - What we get the information we do not attempt to interpret, but it takes us on to the person that we should consider.

15:48 Larsen Sørheim ask about impressions from the first police interrogation of Breivik's mother.

15:49 Sørheim explains what kind of focus they had in these conversations with Breivik's mother.

15:49 Husby and Sørheim reply in unison that they have not talked to anyone other than Breivik's mother.

15:49 Larsen: - What is the reason why you can not make contact with, for example. his friends?

15:50 Sørheim: - There is no doubt that in this case the mother was the best to talk to.

15:51 Larsen: - When you say five cups of coffee, it's like barbecue party he hosted in April 2011?

15:51 Sørheim: - Then we heard a little different I think. What I heard is that he retired in 2006. But other times they met him recently, he was more withdrawn.

15:52 Larsen: - We heard a witness who said that they were together in the park and grilled. It was eighteen months after the barbecue party. Is it relevant?

15:52 Sørheim: - We are well on the deposit account for occasional contact.

15:52 Larsen: - We are talking about a barbecue at the end of April and June met in the park. It looks like the occasional contact?

15:53 Sørheim: - What is indisputable is described for us. He retired in 2006, when they met him he was different.

15:53 Larsen: - Do you have to account for this?

15:54 Sørheim: - During that time no one had contact with him, it is not easy to say how he was. These were the only friends he had and they had very little contact. The same thing that he talked with his mother. We see this as a failure.

15:54 Larsen: - I hear you say there is a malfunction. We've also heard about a trip to Budapest with friends in 2009? Fit this into the picture?

15:55 Sørheim: - I think we have all these things into account. From being someone who earned their own money, he was the one who withdrew. He had no contact and almost no contact with his mother inside the apartment. All this presents this.

15:55 Larsen: - To check out how a person's impairment is so important, why are not you a phone to ask for a call?

15:56 Sørheim: - We have a full opportunity to do so, but you could also in some cases, ask the police make new questioning. Given that many friends were questioned and stated on the phenomena of Breivik, so we had it from there. We assume all the information we have.

15:56 Larsen: - When you chose to use only a komparend, it was a conscious choice?

15:57 Sørheim: - We want to talk to his best friend.

15:57 Husby inject that they tried to get the best companion to Breivik.

15:58 They had never talked with his friend because he had the opportunity.

15:59 Larsen asked about issues that are not permitted reproduced, cf. Minutes ban the court has closed down.

16:01 There is talk now if there was evidence of disease when Breivik was little.

16:03 Husby talking about emails he received from colleagues and people who came up with theories about possible diagnoses Breivik.

16:04 Husby is irritated at the way Larsen oration on.

16:05 Larsen promise to use another word.

16:05 Husby: - We have not missed anything in the report. We have omitted it. You make it sound like a conspiracy.

16:07 Larsen: - In a document from the nursery it says Breivik not cry when he turns sharply?

16:07 Sørheim: - We do not interpretation. It sounds like an ordinary functioning.

16:08 Sørheim says that they have not had access to information about how he behaved at school.

16:08 Larsen: - How do you understand this?

16:08 Sørheim: - I make no interpretation of it. Children behave differently.

16:09 Sørheim: - But we have not had access to some documentation from the school.

16:09 Larsen: - Are you familiar with the scope of his about tagging?

16:10 Sørheim: - He described the course that he was in the tags the environment. We knew that this was in his interest, but we did not talk about how extensive this was. We thought, nor that this was essential.

16:10 Larsen talks about topics that are subject to the minutes ban.

16:16 There is talk now about a child welfare report. This is the Minutes from the ban.

16:18 It's a little confusion in court. The judge asks the experts and counsel Larsen are not talking past each other.

16:19 Larsen: - Are there other explanations for what you have seen?

16:20 Sørheim: - Then the answer is a bit like my husband hello ax handle. We have slightly among the states and have thoroughly thought through other things that could fit into.

16:21 There is a note about Breivik's childhood that is included in the declaration.

16:23 Larsen: - This affektsavflating. Might as well use the word feelings or emotions?

16:23 Sørheim: - Yes. it can be.

16:23 Larsen: - What kinds of emotions are comprised of?

16:23 Sørheim: - It is all emotion.

16:23 Larsen: - Is it fear?

16:23 Sørheim: - Yes.

16:23 Larsen: - Have we heard that Breivik has described the fear 22 July?

16:24 Larsen: - Is it like that Breivik not have anger?

16:25 Sørheim do not give a clear answer.

16:26 Larsen asked about the laughter.

16:26 Larsen: - Sadness and crying, it is a part of it?

16:26 Sørheim: - The whole range of emotions, the whole range of emotions.

16:26 Larsen: - We have seen him crying here.

16:27 Larsen: - Is there anything else you would like to mention about emotions?

16:27 Sørheim: - Through our conversations, we experienced a small degree that it was reaction to the emotional plane.

16:28 Larsen: - You were asked if he was psychotic in court. You, Husby, replied that you could not make a diagnosis through remote diagnostics. Why are you here in court for ten weeks?

16:29 Husby: - You ask the questions as if you are a prosecutor. It is not we who have wanted to be here. There may be many reasons why we are here for trial. It does not mean that we are here to distant diagnosis. Had he, for example, collapsed, or crawling on the floor, it would have been useful.

16:29 Husby: - But why else we're here, ask the court.

16:29 Larsen: - I feel that you will not judge what happened in court. You do not want to comment on the witnesses. Why will not you comment on professionals?

16:30 Sørheim: - As I said here we are within our mandate. A professional evaluation of the other witnesses are not included in our mandate.

16:31 Larsen asks a witness: - When it comes another professional who has experience in evaluating people with paranoid schizophrenia. When she says she does not see anything to it, do not you wonder why?

16:31 Sørheim: - our mandate was time for action and for the study period.

16:31 Larsen: - When it comes skilled professionals who have a different view. What mechanisms come in with you?

16:32 Husby: - I be proud of that, but I have no way to find out where and when.

16:32 Larsen: - It does not do anything with your assessment of him?

16:32 Husby: - To say it like that. The fact that someone has not seen what I saw when I saw it does not mean I have not seen it.

16:32 Larsen: - If that's how he is unprocessed, what would be the best possible outcome?

16:33 Husby: - Some people with long interrogations, for example, be bad.

16:33 Larsen: - You work at a psychiatric emergency department. What would be your suggestions for treatment after they have spoken?

16:34 Husby: - If there is one person in the resolution will be thinking about how we manage to protect them. If there is one person in the resolution, I will try to get him to take medicine.

16:34 Larsen: - Breivik was diagnosed of you in November. Was it discussed with primary care?

16:35 Husby: - No. At that time, the issue with Breivik out of our hands. It was not we who subvert the process. I discussed it once with the police when they asked if he should be entered. But it was such a fuss about the fact that a treatment and hospitalization proved to be impossible.

16:36 Larsen: - You did not contact any health professional to discuss that this man had a serious mental illness?

16:36 Husby:-No.

16:36 Larsen: - Does he still have a paranoid schizophrenic?

16:37 Sørheim: - We still believe that he has diagnosed. We do not know if he still has these symptoms or if he has been improving. However, the diagnosis remains in force, no doubt.

16:38 Lawyer Frode Elgesem: - In the manuals described delusions of a more nature-related art, here we are dealing with someone who has taken a role in a political context. Is this completely universal?

16:38 Sørheim: - That you have thoughts about themselves and their own role is more common than uncommon. This type of thinking is very ordinary.

16:39 Elgesem: - He has created a political framework around them. Do you believe that the court must make a further assessment of the political motivation, how Breivik's attitudes?

16:40 Sørheim: - We have now performed a diagnostic evaluation which we focus have attempted to provide a diagnosis for the court. There is an overall assessment of all these ideas he has presented the psychotic nature.

16:41 Elgesem: - Basically, it's typical for a terrorist to choose his goals. So, I find that it is a kind of knowledge you do not have?

16:42 Sørheim: - The last one is just right. It is a type of knowledge we do not have. But what we have found is that he has it and it and meets the criteria for schizophrenia.

16:42 Elgesem read up on some terms: - Had the same been said by an IRA terrorist, had perhaps said it was relevant to the terrorist.

16:42 Elgesem: - My point is that there must be some additional considerations.

16:43 Sørheim: - Once again ... we make an overall assessment. We had this function kill that we put much emphasis on. We are not delusional, we find a set of it.

16:44 Elgesem: - The fact that he has played on the net considering you as a bad sign, but it can be a venue for radicalization and ideological awakening?

16:45 Elgesem: - He has explained that one of the purposes was to disseminate knowledge on the manifest. You understood that he was more subdued in police interrogations. Have you looked at the idea that he was trying to impress you?

16:45 Husby: - No. I am hundred percent sure that he does not have.

16:46 Husby: - It is because my clinical impression of him is that he has another agenda. There are no games anywhere from him in this matter.

16:46 Elgesem: - What is striking is that he runs over in conversations with you, while he has texture in interrogation, and that the staff at Ila has a different impression than you.

16:47 Sørheim: - There he ran over with, was largely what he had written in the compendium. We had no reason to believe that he made made this for us.

16:47 Elgesem: - Considered you if he was in a propaganda phase?

16:48 Husby: - We talked all about it, we registered it.

16:49 Elgesem: - You quote in the thirteenth conversation with him that he has helped to build the façade of a house. He then says that he really is a foot soldier. He says he has tried psychological warfare. Is there anything in relation to his conduct in relation to you?

16:50 Elgesem: - opinion of you who correctable?

16:50 Sørheim: - The details of what he came up with was relatively changing. This is a conversation from the beginning of November, and you can get to thinking about it. We see him not as correctable.

16:51 Husby: - I'm not so sure that he has changed the fundamental thoughts.

16:51 Elgesem: - Have you experienced any change from then to now, in terms of psychosis?

16:51 Husby: - I do not know, but he has changed the wording.

16:52 Husby: - Rene delusional patients are relatively rare.

16:53 Elgesem: - An element of the misconceptions that you described yesterday, was that he was in the fight right to take life. What right does he have?

16:54 Sørheim: - He describes himself as judge, jury and screed, it is this right we are talking about.

16:54 Elgesem: - In relation to the more ideological right thinking, beyond what is normally accepted.

16:54 The other experts did not question.

16:55 Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: - This Masonic order, in which he has advanced three degrees. This is a topic you have raised in the report. He said it was good to get the network.

16:56 Eielsen: - You have not asked whether he had contact with other lodge members?

16:56 Husby: - It was cited by the prosecutor this morning that he had been involved in a degree meeting, and nothing beyond that.

16:59 Eielsen: - Can it be that when he reaches the eighth degree in the Masonic order you get a Templar cloak. Can he inspired him?

16:59 Sørheim: - It is always like that it is the sum of everything you have experienced, that is delusion.

17:00 District Court Judge Arne Lyng: - Can you say a bit about what you build the low contact with the mother after he moved home?

17:00 Sørheim: - He says he has mostly been alone in practice, and the mother states that they only ate together.

17:00 Sørheim: - They had no interaction, he sat in his room and she made the food.

17:02 Sørheim reads from the part of the statement concerning the questions asked Heather.

17:04 Heather points out that he did not find anything left of the statement in relation to what the experts have testified in court.

17:04 Sørheim: - What she describes is that he walled himself in the room and played on the PC.

17:06 Husby pointed out that Breivik's sister also described a concern about Anders, and that this was written in 2009.

17:07 Heather: - When you got the job as experts. Can you say something about how you got the first request to take upon you this commission?

17:07 Husby: - It was after I had gone in the resort, a phone call from the detective's office if I would like to undertake that mission.

17:08 Heather: - Were you asked to any proposed partner?

17:08 Husby: - No.

17:08 Heather: - You were not asked to suggest some?

17:09 Sørheim: - When I was informed that Husby was already requested.

17:09 Heather: - Can you describe the contact you had with the medical staff at Ila?

17:10 Sørheim: - We received consent to the collection of medical records, and by that time had no conversations on DPS begun. When Ila was only in the picture, they had delivered two notes.

17:11 Heather: - As far as I understood the IPS explanation, she has had some meetings with the defendant. She said she had had a total of ten meetings with Breivik. Considered you to talk to IPS?

17:11 Sørheim: - The only observanden informed, was the contact with the prison health service. We decided never to speak to IPS.

17:13 Heather: - She explained that she had the first conversation with the defendant 9 september. She gave a description to the defendant that she felt different from you. Why can not you out a little more? Is not it interesting?

17:14 Husby: - Of course, it is interesting to find, but it is important to allow the treatment to treatment and observation to observation.

17:14 Heather: - What about the staff at Ila, you obtained information from them through conversation?

17:14 Husby: - We discussed with them, and had regular contact.

17:14 Husby: - We also talked with the others who were on duty.

17:16 Heather: - The general requirements for schizophrenia. You describe the outset that it should be clear at least one of the general requirements. We talked about words and phrases. Can you say something about the strength of "one very obvious symptom"? When is it a symptom?

17:16 Sørheim: - No, we are unable to quantify. We can not replace it with something else than that.

17:17 Heather: - What you build that requirements b) are met for?

17:17 Sørheim: - Observanden said repeatedly that he knew what others thought.

17:18 Sørheim: - He reasoned that since he had extensive experience in sales.

17:19 Heather: - You have mentioned that the conversations in police interrogations are more structured. This considering interruption and hunches, it occurs there as well?

17:19 Sørheim: - I would say that it also occurs in police interrogations.

17:19 Heather: - neologisms also occurs there?

17:19 Sørheim: - He uses the same words and phrases that he made in the talks with us.

17:20 Heather: - In court, he is in facial expression and body language, the same as when you had conversations with him?

17:20 Sørheim: - Yes.

17:20 Husby contributing: - He was more relaxed.

17:21 Heather: - You said yesterday, Husby, that he was driven by violent thoughts. This political ideology of his, you have some idea of what is before violent thoughts or he creates around violent thoughts?

17:22 Husby: - My theory is that violence is the primary tank, and that ideology comes along.

17:22 Sørheim: - In talks with us, he was much more interested in talking about violence and murder.

17:23 Heather: - You have put him into a mental framework of understanding. What is it?

17:23 Sørheim: - We have given him a medical diagnosis to the best professional judgment.

17:24 Heather: - You will interpret a message. Do you away from politics, what context do you the then-into?

17:24 Sørheim: - Our context is medical diagnostics, and that's as far as we are.

17:26 Ernst Henning Eielsen: - I understand that the medication was possible. It was said that he is dangerous. If he gets medications and they work, he is no longer dangerous?

17:26 Sørheim: - Then it must be a reassessment of just killing, because that is what makes him dangerous.

17:27 Judge Arntzen: - When it comes to the question of personality. Is there something you have considered? How?

17:27 Sørheim: - We have followed the diagnostic manual as well as we could.

17:29 Arntzen: - Are you holding the door for personality?

17:29 Husby: - When the disorder is treated, and if it persists personality traits that are not part of the disorder, the assessment should be renewed.

17:30 Sørheim: - Yes, we keep the option open.

17:31 Arntzen questioned affected by the ban Minutes.

17:36 Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: - Do not consider the culture, he differs from? What distinguishes Breivik from a terroist?

17:36 Sørheim: - This is where we feel that he belongs to a non-existent knight culture, that is where it is impossible arrives.

17:36 Larsen: - When you have made an assessment against the standard?

17:37 Sørheim: - He gives references to the Knights Templar ...

17:38 Lay judge Anne Elisabeth Wisløff questioning victims of the minutes of the ban.

17:40 The Court has updated their schedule for next week. The other experts, Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen, to explain the Monday and Tuesday. Thurs the 2nd expert and a witness from the group of survivors at the government building and a witness from the group of survivors Utøya, to testify Wednesday. Thursday and Friday is devoted to procedures.

17:40 It is planned to complete rettsuke, except Thursday, when the court first set at 13

17:41 Breivik: - Administrator, I have to comment on the witnesses.

17:42 Breivik:-Firstly, I think Husby and Sørheim are nice people. The purpose of the talks was to give such a detailed description of the compendium as possible.

17:43 Breivik: - It was a big mistake, I gave them much information as they abused.

17:43 Breivik: - As I wrote in the document you have accessed, refutes many of my assertions they make.

17:43 Breivik: - My conclusion is that 80 percent of the content is fictional.

17:44 Breivik refutes that his life was a series of defeats, so Sørheim and Husby has characterized it, among other things, the "failure".

17:45 Breivik: - From autumn 2007 onwards I am described by total failure. The alleged coffee visits, at least 20 a year with friends.

17:45 Breivik: - I had many meetings in the Masonic order and was involved in two shooting clubs, where I talked with people.

17:46 Breivik - I trained three to four times a week and had training fellow.

17:46 Breivik: - I also had extensive contact with people on the Internet.

17:46 Breivik - I worked as an unpaid writer, but is portrayed as totally retarded.

17:47 Breivik: - They have a purpose for it, but it does not match reality.

17:47 Breivik: - Husby and Sørheim main contention is that I am driven by violence and not by ideology to do. They think I am not politically radicalized. This shows that they are not familiar with the contents of the compendium, which states that violence is the last solution.

17:48 Breivik: - I have never been violent before 22 July, police questioning of friends confirm this.

17:48 Breivik: - I have never behaved threateningly towards health care or other after 22 July. I have stressed that the military operation was a single case.

17:49 Breivik: - Why I had to use military dehumaniseringsstrategier and have years of mental training?

17:49 Breivik: - If I enjoy the violence, why did I dope myself with chemical preparations for the implementation of 22 July?

17:50 Breivik: - Of the five primary sources, there is only one difference, in Husby and Sørheim.

17:50 Breivik: - Husby and Sørheim have completely disregarded why I became radicalized.

17:52 Breivik: - The main argument for Husby and Sørheim is that I have set myself as a judge. Any so-called terrorist who kills someone, assigns the position that a person should die.

17:52 Breivik claims the mother was emotionally unstable when she spoke with Husby and Sørheim, and that her testimony can not be emphasized: - I will ask the judge ignored her statement.

17:54 Breivik then rattles off the names of several terrorists and killers, including Peter Manga and the German neo-Nazi cell, and asks if these are mentally ill.

17:54 The court administrator, Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: - When is the right day complete.

17:54 The court is adjourned and be back Monday at 09