Transcripts‎ > ‎

Anders Behring Breivik Court Transcript 2012-06-22 Live Report

Friday June 22 2012


9:05 Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:

- The court is set. Before I give the word to Lippestad Procedure should I tell it to reverse its earlier decision regarding the broadcast of the defendant's final remark. We have considered the petition and the views that have come from the case participants. And we believe the case stands as before. We do not allow the broadcast of the victim and survivor final remark either.

9:05 defender Geir Lippestad:

- Distinguished law. I plan to keep a procedure now in about three hours. As a prosecutor said yesterday, we must try to be as concentrated as possible. Will first go through some law. This was the prosecutor carefully yesterday, but there are some clarifications which I think is relevant to include.

- This terrorist act is almost impossible to understand. It is therefore web create, we are in the situation we face with two sets of experts who have very different assumptions as the basis for their reports. It is these different forutsetningne I want the procedure. The court is of course sovereign (...).

- So it is naturally the most time on the facts and the evidence on which of the two expert reports as it is now after the evidence is reviewed. It is essentially the time spent. But before I start law, I will take up the thread where the prosecutor was yesterday, when she started her procedure. She said that "22 July, Norway ustsatt a cruel act of terrorism. It was so awful that you almost can not believe it was true. " I share fully the prosecutor's description. Also, Vere is vireklighet, that small, safe Norway was subjected to such action.

Breivik sitting reclined next Lippestad while he litigates. He scroll in a document which probably is the legal statement of Lippestads procedure. Lippestad has raised his table, and stands leaning forward while his talk.

Lippestad repeat some of the prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh said in the introduction of the prosecution procedure yesterday - that the 22 July-attacks are the worst thing that has happened on Norwegian soil after the war. - It was so awful that you almost can not believe it's true. But unfortunately it is reality, and the views prosecutor made yesterday whether this is something I share, says Lippestad and continues: - It is hardly possible to understand. The defender, which is when he speaks, continues to say that the experts have different factual basis - and this is what he essentially is going to grab its ii procedures.

9:09 defender Geir Lippestad:

- Now I go over to the legal statement that is on their desks. I shall briefly point out paragraph 44 that the prosecutor was evident when it comes to rule of mental incapacity. What is written there, is that the action of time was psychotic or unconscious, not punished.

- This is one of criminal law terms, one is sane or not? In the case of another criminal law terms, there is no doubt that it is expelled criminal behavior. The parties agree that the defendant has acted in the charges and all other evidence in the case indicate. Culpability requirement in § 40 is also fulfilled. The actions are planned and they are also just as the prosecutor said, and even desirable.

- The question that the defendant has raised is whether there is impunity reasons. He said initially that he invoked the principle of necessity. I will treat this very short. The third question, the question of sanity. This I will deal very thoroughly. The Penal Code section 44 [Reading from a NOU 1990 on accountability.] "The central psychosis criterion is that the ability to realisteisk assessment of one's relations with the world is essentially abolished."

- There is general agreement on this criterion: the offender's inability to realistic assessment of the outside world must be fairly generic. The shortage must include the essential aspects of reality. In Proposition which is included on page three in the excerpt, as it says, and then I read:

Lippestad reads an excerpt written about what a psychosis is: Among other things, it says that if you are delusional, so is the relationship to reality disturbed. The defender continues to read up Andenæs' statements psychosis. It says that the missing realitetsoppfatingen must be comprehensive if we are to be regarded as psychotic.

9:13 defender Geir Lippestad:

- There is now consensus among psychiatrists is that first and foremost that of a psychosis, the relationship to reality is significantly disturbed. To respond adequately to the impression missing. The psychotic often lose control of your thoughts, feelings and actions. The intellectual functions can be controlled. The border between psychosis and other disorders is not clear.

- If we look a little bit of legal theory, I set out on page 5 from Andenes, ordinary Criminal Law, Fifth Edition, that is the bottom section I want to read. "The central characteristic of psychosis, the pyskotiskes inability of a realistic relationship with the outside world."

From where I sit on row two, it looks like it is fully in the saddle 250 in the day. Yesterday we noticed that there were significantly more press, both Norwegian and foreign, into the hall. Even today there are a lot of pressure here, and many concerned. Aufs leadership - including Chairman Eskil Pedersen and General Tonje Brenna - are among the victims who are here today. For many, it is important enough to take in the end the ten-week case.

9:14 defender Geir Lippestad:

- Preparatory work for the reform of 97, it is said that there is common agreement. A clear boundary between mental illness and other mental disorders do not exist. It is the ability to realistic evaluation. It must be quite extensive. So the question is - evidence requirements. This is also carefully considered by the prosecutor yesterday. I will say that to make some clarifications. Criminal Court's starting point is reasonably clear. Doubts should be indicted as a whole. The purpose is to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is interpreted so that it is a milder standard of proof or claim to sanity.

- The preparatory work does not give a clear answer on how much milder, but only that it is milder through case law and legal theory. It is the preparatory work in 1990 is adequate and Proposition which is adequate. A key prosecutor's judgment that has been built on [Lippestad mention this] where it denotes doubt which a reasonable doubt. A judgment is not Supreme Court, but lagmannsrettsdom is very interesting in this case.

- If we go to page 30, and I will read an excerpt from the judgment. It is from the Court of Appeal, 13 December 1996. What is interesting with the judgment is that there are similar conditions as us. A man wanted to be judged as sane, but there were two reports that said he was sane and insane. There was also evidence from other processors. A very similar situation as us in many ways.

- What I read from this judgment that I think is interesting and may help to extend this evidence requirement which, on page 30 and it is: The majority places considerable emphasis on ensuring that none of the doctors who have observed NN has found His hallucinations (...)

Lippestad have chosen to start with law, and they femdommerne included in the legal statement while talking. So do prosecutors and lawyers assistance.

From a journalist colleague I know that there is still a long queue for security check is very long today. This means that the rush to follow the trial last day is great, as it was in the trial the first week.

9:19 defender Geir Lippestad:

- "The voices are not the sounds. The majority noted here that it can be quite hard what these voice disorders - what they go out on. It is thus unclear whether there is something Jorgensen hear or imagine. Whatever can not find a majority that it affects his personality to such an extent that he has touch with reality that he is insane in criminal law. Although doubts should be indicted, he will benefit, it is satisfied that psychosis is not present. "

- Sufficient well done. The majority refer to as indicated from the defense side with regard to the doubt in such situations. (...) Also the chairman expressed some doubts. (...) In such a special and difficult case like this, put the emphasis on the explanation from the doctors who have followed his stay at the psychiatric institution also highlights the actions. The court must consider whether this decision, based on the specific circumstances that are quite similar to our circumstances, makes the claim that the evidence can be defined as that requires a clear preponderance.

- So any slippage from 1979. If we look at the legal theory about evidence issues, we will be short, for even here, the prosecution made a thorough job. Asbjorn Strandbakken is published on page 8 of the statement. [Reading from the statement.] This is applied in several studies. Professor Mæland not included In his introduction to criminal law also affected the issue.

- And Professor Andenes in its 5th edition, published on page 37 of the statement says: "When the front is said - that the psychiatric expert opinion will be binding on the court - you may need to make a reservation."

Geir Lippestad refers to a judgment from the Court of Appeal that bleavsagt 13 December 1996. - What is interesting in this judgment is that it is quite similar to our situation in many ways. In the case of 1996 there was a man who wanted to be judged sane, and the two experts who evaluated him disagreed with sane safety issue. The verdict states that "the majority places considerable emphasis on ensuring that none of the doctors who examined him found him schizophrenic." The forensic commission was divided on this issue. "Whatever can not find a majority that it affects his personality to such an extent that he has touch with reality that he is insane in criminal law. Although doubts should be indicted, he will benefit, it is satisfied that psychosis is not present," reads Lippestad up .

9:23 defender Geir Lippestad:

- This is very important, it says there Andenes. "When the front is said that the psychiatric experts will bind the court, it may be reason to take the reservation. The experts, for example, by its assessment emphasized that the investigated without cause have shown resentment and suspicion of his immediate family to suggest delusions (...). The court finds, however after its assessment of evidence that he had good reason for his resentment and suspicion. (...) »

- It is a very important consideration that Alnes comes with, because in this case relates to two or four highly skilled experts who have prepared reports with significant differences. Does the court that the assumption that one vote, one stands free to choose whether to add it to the ground or not. This is a pretty good proof that the law is sovereign in its assessment. If we look at the real concerns behind the standard of proof, so it was said yesterday that it is less unfair to punish a man who is sane than an innocent who has done the acts.

- This will vary from case to case. Law is not science and neither is forensic psychiatry. There is a large element of judgment. I refer to Randi Rosenqvist, she has written about this in the Journal of Criminal Law, where she discusses the fact that forensic science is not that the judges must have freedom to assess the conditions. A question that may arise in this case is whether it should be emphasized what the defendant wants.

In Norwegian criminal law should doubt be accused as a whole. - But what is for his good, ask Lippestad. Breivk wishes known to be punished for their actions - that is to be known criminally accountable by the court. Lippestad turned to one of those who have studied at Ila Breivik, who said: "It is just as bad to treat a healthy person, who not to treat someone who is ill."

9:26 defender Geir Lippestad:

- Reasonable doubt is supposed to be indicted as a whole. When the defendant wishes to be punished, what? Yes, we have no clear legal precedent, but what is his assessment is a good theme. I refer to witness Maria Sigur Jónsdóttir, who said: "It is just as bad to treat someone who is healthy, not to treat someone who is ill." We will put us in memory, when we consider what the defendant's good. If we look at the basic human rights and assumes that the defendant has a radical political project, being morbidly make his actions, he takes from a basic human right - the right to take responsibility for their own hand is similar.

- The right to take responsibility for their actions. And this principle of this right can be derived from the commission on disability rights. It is enacted by the General Assembly in 2006, it has been signed but not ratified by Norway. In conclusion, I would just like the prosecutor say that there is a more lenient standard of proof on the question of accountability than the question of guilt.

Breivik sitting as usual with a special pen in hand and plays with it while Lippestad talk he has throughout the trial taking notes and commented on what has been said, the defense's own witnesses. He also takes notes while talking Lippestad.

9:28 defender Geir Lippestad:

- How much will you here is up to the court to consider. The Court has discussed this, but I also refer to Andenes where he says that "where there are different assumptions of the experts are right freely to assess the evidence in the case." Why should I spend the rest of the procedure to what we believe is the most important evidence in favor of the defendant is sane. When we are over to the next point that is fact.

- I'm going to put it up so, honored right, that I first say something initially and then I'll take with me the whole as the first two experts have been concerned, and their definition of a morbid delusion, violence glorification, delusions associated with the Knights Templar, neologisms, perception, are important factors to see the whole. I'm going to take me this step by step down.

- When I'm done with it, I'm going to look at the methodology and discuss some of the other experts who have been inside the case. Then comes the very end bit short on the principle of necessity, and even less about the detention. There are plans for further discussion. As to the discussion regarding the fact.

Lippestad says that there must be absolutely no doubt at the four straight psychiatrists who have examined Breivik is very talented. - But they have two essential assumptions for its conclusions, says Lippestad. While Husby and Sørheim says Breivik's ideas are expressed delusions, has Aspaas and Tørrissen put his thoughts and ideology into a right-wing context.

9:31Defender Geir Lippestad: - There is no doubt that there will be no doubt that there are four highly skilled experts who have submitted reports. They have submitted two reports. There can be no doubt about their professional backgrounds. They have two essential different conditions for their different conclusions. As I see it and so I think it is clearly emerged in court is that the report number one place as the defendant's actions are governed by delusions and violence glorification.

- His politics, his right-wing politics, is just dressing. He sees it in a context. In the case report number two, it is my clear understanding that as they watch his actions in a cultural, right-wing context. They go into the terrorist's thought. As Andenes, in his textbook, is the right freely to evaluate these assumptions. If the court agrees that the assumptions in report number 2 is the most correct, then it is easy to ignore the report number 1

- Is the right, however agree that the assumptions in the report 1 is correct, then it must be the basis for the decision. As so often in a criminal case, the court must look at the facts that form the basis for its judgment. An important point that both the prosecutor, but also an expert report has been placed on its assessment about psychosis, the requirements contained in the ICD, F20, paragraph D.

9:33 defender Geir Lippestad: - If we look at the ICD F20 point D is defined as where the meaning of the claim. It is responsible for completing the claim is "persistent delusions of other kinds that are culturally inappropriate and completely impossible that religious or political identity, or superhuman powers and abilities. Being able to control the weather or control the creatures from an alien world. A central concept is the complete impossibility.

- In Report No. 1, they have experts on page 228 defined why they think it is a delusion. On page 228 point D say, "There is a persistent bizarre delusions intensive actions, exemplified by the idea that he is participating in a civil war where he is set to decide on who should live and die, and a future seizure of power in Europe."

- That's what they underlie the defendant thinks and believes. He assumes that this is a delusion. I come on to the diploma as the experts, the first, ga. They provided a comprehensive definition where they saw the whole picture. As a whole, this is clearly within the rules on delusions. What I quoted me yesterday was that statsdvokaten believed that a few of the terms, perception, that we know what others think, and neologisms, the creation of words that nobody understood, and this with a clear identity, understanding, there are things that the prosecutor believes it is not likely that the defendant suffers from.

- I will still discuss it afterwards. It is not the court agrees to the assessment. I understand the prosecutor so that the evidence says it is not true for ICD 10. When I go into the core of a report number and what I understood of the experts said that defendants operated a glorification of violence. It is not politics, it is not the desire to change society is glorification of violence which is the mother of the actions that are available. The delusions are the examples that he is participating in a civil war.

- And it's important for that is what experts testified here in court. Then I take it again, as the prosecutor read out yesterday. The core of P be any style, explained Sørheim, is: "He thinks he will save us all from destruction in a battle between good and evil. In this fight, he has a superior position in a non-existing organization. "

9:38 defender Geir Lippestad: - It is the essence of delusion to the first two experts see it. The question we must ask ourselves is whether there is such a defendant sees the world. But if you do not agree with it, it is an essential aspect in the assessment of their falling away. It corresponds quite well what they write in section D, it is a bit expansive, that he has a superior position in a non-existent organization.

9:39 defender Geir Lippestad: - When I go to the evidence we have received here in court. The first thing I want is to ask whether it is important that the two experts have said that there is violence glorification and fantasies that are the mother of these gruesome acts, or if there is such that the two experts, number two has said that it is his radical extremist political conviction. This is the theme of violence. I think that a natural starting point to see if a person is driven by violence, so look at what he has done earlier in life.

- If we look at his childhood, there is no specific information that he has been speielt violent. We know that the family had a stay at the National Center for Child and Youth Psychiatry. There is no information there about violence from four year old. It was quite different problems which they were there.

- When it comes to children's school, there is no documentation on violence issues. Friends from that time, we have not received anything from. There are no specific episodes from the child of violence, and when it comes to the defendant himself, he can not remember that much of the first years of life, and that's okay. In the case of adolescence, what do we do? He has been in contact with the child once. It was in connection with an episode tag. No problems reported violence.

- When it comes to friends as witnesses for him as a good friend, non-violent. A little awkward and not so good at sports, but no one says he has had violent tendencies. When it comes to school it is an episode where there were possibly a fight, but it is not reported anything special from the school indicating that he has a violent behavior of any kind. In the case of the accused even as he explained that he has been involved in gangs and they have traveled around at parties, but there is little evidence that these gangs have been distinctly violent of any kind.

- On the contrary, it may indicate that the defendant's way of solving conflicts had to be tough in the face, talked their way out of conflicts. Small to indicate specific violent tendencies. If we look at adult age, when I take the time up to 22.7, for there is no doubt that the 22 July was a violent inferno. Mother describes in police interrogations a nice, kind, good boy, no episodes of violence, either against her or others. Friends describe a nice, good boy.

- Breivik even describes some minor confrontations, but said he mostly talked out of it. Your friends have not seen the episodes. We will look at the formal documentation. Penalty and remedy register, there is also no remarks about violence. He has a ratio of -95 for tagging, and he has a relationship in -98 for drunken driving on a moped.

9:45 defender Geir Lippestad: - No other conditions. If we look at leisure activities - selection of games. We know and there is evidence that the defendant chose to do from 2006 and a few years was to play World of Warcraft. We got some information from a police officer about what this game is. He relied on a report that is part of the documents and I will just read briefly what he said about what the game is about.

- What the World of Warcraft is like. The game is mainly on solving the task reward, ranging from collecting carrots, to gather teammates to kill a dragon. Eventually you will get (...) The 12-year limit on this game. We know that if you have a penchant for violence, there are lots of games out there that are extremely violent life. It has thus accused decided to play a game where teamwork, planning, The communications are very important and potions and food to fill up before going out to catch the kites are important pieces.

- There is little evidence that there is a latent violence glorification in playing WoW for so many years and as much as he has done. If we look at the choice of leisure activities, we know that he was doing a health club, he has played a part, he has been a member of a political party, membership in a shooting club. And, as I am unknown, then one is very aware there are some that show a particularly negative effect in a shooting club. There is a danger if he swayed. It is not the comments from some of his leisure activities that the defendant is violent of any kind.

- This is very important because we need to understand if it was the political extremism or glorification of violence that lay the foundation for action. Looking at his work, he sold fake diplomas, it is not ærerikt, but there is no glorification of violence in it. He has had several employees and no one has reported on violence issues in the relationship there. Then we come to 22 July. Let me make it absolutely clear, 22 July is an inferno of violence.

9:49 defender Geir Lippestad: - But we must also look at how he carried out this attack in order to assess whether there was violence in itself, or whether the policy was the cause. The defendant testified that the two goals he chose was carefully chosen. There is every reason to believe he is on. There were political goals, and government quarters aufs fun. The defendant testified that he heard on the P4 and heard, this is absurd to talk about, but I try to put the watch into his world, he heard that only one was killed. Should he gain, pitch, for its manifest, it was too small.

- He decided to travel to Utøya. He could have traveled to Oslo City, Khan could have gone to Karl Johan, whose idea was to kill as many as possible. He could have placed a bomb in Oslo City. On Friday afternoon an Oslo City completely full. It is not the government quarter. He made those choices. He also made the choice that he surrendered at Utøya. He came with his hands over his head. You could say that he had no chance. But if it was glorification of violence and violent fantasies that drove him, why would he surrender?

9:52 defender Geir Lippestad: - We also know that he staged earlier in the Utøya and want to surrender. Indicates that there is violence glorification or anything else that was the basis for those actions. OK, 22 July was a violent inferno. Before July 22, there was no violence, but what happens afterwards? Ila, both doctors and prison officers report an exemplary prisoner. Quiet, calm and polite. The police said a quiet, calm, polite prisoner. The observation team said the same thing.

- No signs of any violence in the relationship. The four experts who have talked with him, speaks of an exemplary man who acts without showing any particular violence studs thousands. Here, the court has been sitting for ten weeks and we have not seen anything, fortunately, resulted in anger, uncontrolled violence or otherwise. My point, I'll condense to argumenasjonen in report number 2 My point is that there is not anything in his life prior to 22 July, or afterwards, which suggests violence in his life. (...)

9:54 defender Geir Lippestad: - He has extreme positions and do not have empathy, but there is no exercise of violence that have been opposing. My thesis is that there are extreme political opinions in the bottom. [Judge Arntzen: - The first expert, what they perceived as a delusion, his experience of having a straight or a call to decide who should live or die. The he repeated here in court.] The I'm going a little later. That I treat the Knights Templar and what there is of information.

- An alternative interpretation is that violence is the mother of the cruel acts is the interpretation that follows from the second report that it is right extremism. It is the cynical, ruthless terrorist who is the mother of 22 actions July. There is one - for most of us - a politically motivated reasons to perform actions. So we must look then. Has he been interested in political issues in their lives, or showed up right before he did these actions. What we know is that he was quite young joined Frpu and he testified in court is not entirely inconceivable, that the reason for joining was the political question is about immigration.

9:56 defender Geir Lippestad: - Many people who join in a politsk party is passive. It did not defendants. He became involved, he was active in local chapters and debates. He allowed himself to choose as representative of different areas. In addition to this, the defendant wrote the early 20s a number of newspaper articles. He explained that he wrote a series of posts, many of those were rejected. Hilde Haugsgjerd, Aftenposten's editor, told of a discussion she had with the defendant in his newspaper, Aftenposten. I will repeat what she said in her testimony.

- Then it says: Persons charged, he asks a question to the editor of Aftenposten: What is the rationale for the newspaper Aftenposten after 1972 began to support multiculturalism, and thus in practice it continued to be a cultural conservative alternative? (...) As the editor responds: Aftenposten is an independent newspaper, with a conservative liberal view.

- The defendant writes: "What do you think that Norway joins the ranks of countries that have cultural conservative newspapers." Signed Anders B. So she answers it. Clearly this with immigration, multicultural society is important to him as political issues. We also know that he has participated in numerous online debates. We know that he has been active on the right-wing sides Gates of Vienna and It is characterized by a violent argument, however politically extreme argument.

- We remember the testimony from Professor Lars Gule, who spoke on these pages. They are political, and he had had discussions with Breivik on immigration issues, among others. They also told us he was in court, a professor Gule, is that the defendant had suggested a political partnership between and a political party, that is a pure political construction. When we look at the mentors Breivik has held in its journey towards becoming a terrorist, we can see that Fjordman, I use only the nickname, is one of his clear role models. When we got the review of the manifesto, we were told that 45 of the essays in the manifesto are Fjordman's.

- And that is as far as I understood by the police, about 320 pages of the Manifesto. Fjordman, he is obviously at the extreme right when it comes to questions about immigration and multiculturalism. But he is no man who use violence, he is a writer, a man who uses the pen. There is no evidence that he is something else.

10:02 Defense Geir Lippestad: - A man such as Breivik choose as a main mentor. Not one that is a glorifier of violence. If we look at social media - his use of social media - so the police have explained that he had almost 8000 addresses. Many of these addresses have not the police get to the bottom of yet. There is reason to believe that there are many politicians, especially politicians on the right side of the political axis of the system. The mother of Breivik explains in his statements to the police that Breivik at times was extremely interested in politics.

- And especially immigration policy. She said he became more intense when he talked about politics. She has never said that he talked about violence at all. The same friends say. This over many years. If we go on the stone in the Breivik's work, namely the manifesto, why would someone who is driven by violent fantasy, spend so many years of his life, and we are unsure of how much time he has used, but there are a lot of time, if he did not have a political project. The first book is just about politics. Of course we disagree about what is there, and reject that which is nonsense, but within the culture he is in, it is not nonsense. In the third book, even as described coming war and the coming conflict.

- He describes that war may be appropriate to achieve the goal. holy war goal. But the goal is not war. I think there are some who have analyzed the manifesto that says otherwise. The goal is that Europe should, as he says, be free of Muslims. Then there are a number of means. It is the policy goal. It is extreme, it can be painful to hear, but it is the political goal of the Manifesto.

10:06 Defense Geir Lippestad: - If we look at the defendant's explanation and he has been consistent from day one. Then he says that it is awful to hear, but the hardest thing I heard the first few days is how it is possible. He says clearly that the actions 22 July was just a firework to spread the manifesto, that his political message. Is it just nonsense? What he did right before he went out and did these actions. He sat and spread this manifesto. The computer was slower than he had imagined. He was delayed, but it was sent out about 1,000 before he left. The witness said the police is that of what they had analyzed so far was the 400 media people who had received it.

10:06 Defense Geir Lippestad: - Media People, not violent men around by, but media people, and Breivik's media strategy has been evident. 400 media people have been manifest and 219 politicians from different parties in Norway and abroad. Is it a politically motivated act, or is it an act done by someone who just raving about the violence? Breivik also explained that he tried to publish this manifesto, but for understandable reasons, did not succeed with it. Then we are the choice of targets, to try to see if coping in report 1 or 2 is closest to reality.

10:07 Defense Geir Lippestad: - Choice of targets. Government buildings. Prime Minister's Office. More political goal, where the core of Norway's politicians are, there's probably not. Utøya, he had examined the Brundtland would be there that day. It was the primary goal. Set in his world, it is Gro Harlem Brundtland, a political goal. And AUF too. As long as he believes that Labor and Labor's future, AUF, is responsible for the immigration policy we have in Norway.

- So I'm going Utøya. Now I come to the hardest, one that says most about it is fantasy violence or extreme-right politics that form the basis for his actions. We know that he shot the captain of the ferry. He explained that he was defined as a non-politically active. He did not shoot 10-year-old and was not defined by Breivik as politically active. The moment we may have gained the most insight into him if he is a ruthless terrorist violence or a fantasist. The explanation is consistent with the witness Pracon. He remembers that we are one of the many great deltagarne on the island. He explained that he was in the water and it was up to his feet. Breivik looked at him, charged with, but turned around.

10:11Defender Geir Lippestad: - Breivik explained that I shot he did not, "because I saw one of my in him." It seems Pracon was very painful to hear and what we understand. Was it completely absurd to think of Breivik it? What did he [Pracon] wearing? A tight-fitting turquoise polo shirt, green pants and heavy hunting boots, hiking boots, they looked like boots, and he had a slightly shorter welding at the time than in court. Where did Breivik the assessment that this is not a political opponent. A completely baffling logic for most of us, but for him, in a right-wing context, says that just what was the motive for being on the island and do the cruel actions and nonviolence beautiful stone itself.

10:11 Defense Geir Lippestad: - My review of the evidence that has emerged in the case is similar with the assessment that the second expert has concluded. That there is violence that is the mother of the actions, but the extreme political stance. The actions he must look from the right wing, political viewpoint. Does the court that it is these beliefs that are the basis for the actions, one can easily ignore a report. I will enter the next section, delusions and that he, through a delusion is entitled to decide who shall live and who should die.

10:12 VG: - Lippestad wonder if it is best to take the next batch after a pause, and get well. The court pauses until 10:30 am.

Anders Breivik Behring is listed in court again. It looks like he enjoys being the focus of the many photographers.

10:32 VG: - Negotiations continue.

Lippestad are now embarking on the main rationale of the report to the Husby and Sørheim why Breivik is psychotic. He refers to the so-called D-criterion in ICD-10 (d) persistent delusions of other kinds that are culturally inappropriate and completely impossible, such as religious or political identity, or superhuman powers and properties (eg being able to control the weather or communicate with beings from an alien world),

10:35 Defense Geir Lippestad: - For your information, I expect that we are ready to noon. The next part of the totality constituting psychosis in the first zag expert declaration, it is said that the delusion exemplified that he is participating in a civil war. It emerges directly from the report. I will now discuss whether there is a real shortcoming that he believes that he is a participant in a war. I refer to Section D of the ICD-10. "Persistent delusions that are impossible and culturally inappropriate ..."

- And here there is a significant difference from the report one to two. Report number one, as far as I understand, does not see it in a cultural context with regard to the concept of war. Number two, put it into a cultural context and look at what's right-wing think of when talking about war. I think Husby said this very clearly that every time there is one on my office and says he is Jesus, I can not call a religious stories. I think the presumption of its own. It seems unreasonable that Jesus would come to him.

- We understand that he did not call a historian of religion. But when we know that the biggest terrorist attack carried out in Norway is conducted that the defendant, and he meets in the basement of Ila and he says he is a terrorist, is it just strange to think, should we put this within a cultural context we shall understand his concept of the world? They have chosen to ignore it, and it's probably okay. But if the court believes it is wrong to ignore the cultural contexts, which also says the criteria that you should, I believe the assumptions used in the Report 2 will be more adequate.

- For it is a psychotic real shortcoming when defendants talk about the word civil war. What does he mean by the term? He explained to police that he believes that he is talking about a low-intensity jihad, a demographic warfare. He has not seen the plane in the air, imaginary soldiers in the woods or imaginary tanks on the roads. Never has he said that he has seen this. He talks about a demographic warfare. The fact that Europe is at the start of a war, and he talks about a 60-year perspective.

- It was in the manifesto before the action and he said early on to the police. He talked about the riots in Paris and London, but it is not imaginary rebellion there is evidence that it was before the previous elections. So the question is whether he is the only one in the world with the notion that we are at the start of a demographic war that eventually may become a regular civil war. Then we need to take in knowledge, at least make a list to consider his cultural perspective.

- Professor Gardell told us in court that "it is quite common in these communities to talk about a war. It's a normal show. "Professor Gule:" A very widespread view. We are not at war, they believe that Islam is at war with us, a very widespread view in the right extremist groups. "Professor Power:" Many people share his opinion on the war. "Fjordman supports his opinion about a civil war. Professor Bjørgo: "A basic notion among radical terrorists that we are at war."

10:42 Defense Geir Lippestad: - If we are in those shoes on, the more they wanted to have several of the witnesses, but many withdrew. But great for those who stood up and came. What did they say? Ron Alte earlier NDL: We are at war with the Muslim community. Tumyr used exactly the same rhetoric. Tore Tvedt from Vigrid was perhaps the one who went furthest in its use of terms.

- But the fight against Muslims, they were adamant that there was a fight in progress. The more sophisticated witnesses, Anfindsen, tried through the documentation to show us that SSB is wrong when it does not explain how the demographic development in Norway. We were certainly with a sense of what he said, but it does not take away the focus that the environment is the information to the common perception and taken for granted. If we compile these radical views against decision taking perception, we witness Raymond Johansen here. And luckily, he has a different opinion about how the world should look like than Tore Tvedt and Tumyr.

- What he says, Raymond Johansen, is that we work for globalization, it is positive, we want to attract workers from all over the world and the multicultural Norway is positive. We have a lot to learn about integration. For a right-wing and one that belongs to the culture that Breivik the last ten years have been in, it is a confirmation of what they are afraid of, that Norway is opening up to immigration.

- What I think is perhaps most remarkable in the report, number one is not that it is not taken into account the cultural aspect as it is in the ICD-10 that they should do. But what I find most strange is: It is that after the presentation of evidence, do not modify to some extent that we have received information that puts the term in a somewhat different light. But they maintained their conclusion. The fact he is in a war is one of the major delusions. When it comes to how Europe, it's really none of us knows where we are in 60 years. Who would think a few years ago that neo-Nazis in Greece, the cradle of democracy, would receive ten percent of the vote?

- Due to the crisis and large omveltningner in the country. The other delusion is made to the Knights Templar. That one has a foundation and a right to do something that is rooted in the Knights Templar. The first experts have also mentioned this as a grandiose, a grand description of the Knights Templar. Again, the two reports submitted substantially different emphasis on this. Now that's a fact, it is important to establish that the defendant has been in Liberia in 2002 and in London in 2002. We had been facing a problem if he had thought he had been there.

10:48 Defense Geir Lippestad: - But it's not a point here, he has been there. But the report number 1 is the emphasis that he belongs to a non-existent organization, that it is a grandiose delusion. How is it Breivik has described the KT Network? Both the experts have received police statements on the fly, and got it on video. I think he really, fully, that it is a very organization that is out there, or he believes something else? So I can show senior IPS notes, which he said in a Journal note 9 September that he "merely a foot soldier."

- He is no king or all those other nice words. And he was not talking about that he would have to pay and take over Norway. This is when he has the media ban and long before there is any report. The main reason for the police, in October, when he talks about the KT network was four sweaty man in a basement, and that this is a proposal to the organization. Where is it grand? Where is the real flaw? Why modifies himself? There are two very clear report. Maybe he is a terrorist who want to spread fear? Maybe he is lying?

- It's not particularly fearful to say that you are alone and that no one wants to continue their work. It is a terrorist want to say that there is something grand behind him. He can lie, he can exaggerate, it can also be imaginative said report number two, but not of psychotic quality because it is so limited. In our imagination could he have been meeting, but not of psychotic quality. There is also a possibility in the second report that Breivik telling the truth. There may be four people there that he met and who he talked to in this basement. At least in ICD10s sense, it is not impossible as the first two experts have said. We live happily in such a society that a meeting between young people in a city not always recorded.

10:52 Defense Geir Lippestad: - When they do not want their activity recorded. I thus continues on Breivikk made statements about his role, if he has a substantial touch with reality to reality. He has used an expression "2 percent of 2 percent chance" that he becomes leader. If he had said 0.2 percent, but it is apparently incorrect math. (...) He is commander in a encellestruktur, he explained the police, that leads to himself. Commander is a nice word.

- And all this he said to the police before a report came. Well before. Then report a major difference account. One consideration I have thought a lot about, and that has also been devoted much time here in court. The typical terrorist as we know, have a sense of belonging to a physical group where you meet, train together, radicalizing another. It is not the case here and it's a good point. So the question again - there are other forums in which young people can meet on today, socialized in the same way as you did in the branches before? Yes, here is the social network world taken over.

10:54 Defense Geir Lippestad: - You can sit and talk to people all over the world. You can find your minded - if one's radical - all over the world. You can have a community even if you do not physically meet. The dimension that is missing the first report critical assessment of the social media can be taken over for this lone terrorist. In my report and the other opinion, he has become radicalized through contacts on the web.

- If we look at other aspects of Breivik and his explanations. Now we talk about all the statements before the first report were to testify touch with reality. He said in the first interrogation, out on Utøya that he will be perceived as a demon. He was afraid that someone would kill him there. How can a person who does not have a realistic action that he has committed is completely unacceptable in our culture, have an accurate picture of reality? "I want to be perceived as a demon." He said.

- He also said he thought the police would be so affected that they were going to shoot him. He shows that he has done is so unacceptable that the police could do such things. He was talking about and asked if he would be tortured. In Norway we do not torture, but we have never had such a terrorist sitting in captivity either.

10:58 Defense Geir Lippestad: - It is important and that two reports emphasized, was that relatively quickly said "no, here you will not be tortured," as he understood it. His reality was that he would be tortured, was corrected and he took the correction. He relates to reality. It was right after these actions had occurred. The same must apply it him that his mother and family had been lynched. Yes, the first hour after the terrorist bomb was a special atmosphere. I have read in newspapers that some have experienced it as a lynching atmosphere. Was it completely unrealistic that the defendant believed his family would be lynched?

- Do not psychotic quality, in my opinion. So the question is, the right to kill. Who, on earth, has given the terrorists the right to kill? No, of course, if you do not do it in the title of the Act's provision of war and a mandate from Parliament. The question is, he knew it was wrong to kill? If not, report number 1 a big point. But he realized it was wrong to kill. Why should he have to call the police and surrender?

11:00 Defense Geir Lippestad: - He has understood very well that what he did was wrong, but he chose to kill and that's what terrorists do. They take the liberty, they have seen a truth, they have perceived something that no one else has though. The end justifies the means. It is a classic terrorist thinking and Gule and all the others who have been here, has said. This one will not understand if you do not know the culture of the extreme right. I am very agree with the report number one on if you had been in a situation where Breivik did not understand that it was not allowed to kill, it would have been different. But he realized that he would get reactions. He mentioned that even in the manifesto for action came the trial. Another point in the first two experts' overall assessment is that they have called a step-function case. That he changed lives since 2006.

- Also there's an important difference between report one and two. Report number two says he has changed lives, but it does not follow the terms of the ICD 10 where it says in Section I of this with functional decline, "a significant change in the quality of personal behavior that is shown through indifference, futility, self-absorption and social withdrawal." Again we must look at the evidence we have received in court and that has been presented by us. Fills Breivik the terms or he does not. If we look at 2006, it is clear that when it comes to his work, these companies are more or less abandoned.

- As stated in Report 2, so he fulfills his obligations to the trustee. Another thing that is very interesting to watch, which I can not see that the first report touches on the whole, is that Breivik since 2006 has had a considerable share trading. There are some people in Norway who have it for a living. Looking at the extent of it, we can get an idea of ??whether this loss of function is so complete. We have had testimony from the police inside, who told about this, but the witness explained, was that in 2006, there was little trade. There were 35 trades in the company to Breivik called E-Commerce Group. In 2007, it is quite interesting, there is one trade, with Suncom Wireless Holding. It happened two days after the company was open again on the New York Stock Exchange.

- I do not know much about stocks. But what I think is that when you manage to follow up two days later, and sells for nearly 700,000 dollars, then follow with. He did. In 2008, he had 60 trades in shares. To me it sounds quite a lot, at least if one should believe that he is completely withdrawn from society. He sold and purchased shares until 2009. It was not so much in 2009, mostly in 2008.

11:06 Defense Geir Lippestad: - In 2008, significant transactions. In addition, it has the second report emphasized that he worked on the manifest. If we look at the manifesto we know that there is much work that lies behind it. It's brought in a lot of information, as described mass ideology. There are a lot of work into how bombs are made and everything is written in English. It is 1800 pages, which is cut and pasted. Is it compatible with the complete loss of function? Report number two has been placed on his hobbies, it does not report number one. He then played WoW for the period from 2006 to 2008. We had a witness in, and he put me into a new world. There was a high level Breivik played. He led a "guild", he had to prepare, talk and interact with others, and meet at fixed times and end at set times. It sounds to me like a working day just that most people choose to go to paid employment.

- We know that in this period, he should have had a significant and complete functional decline, trained, participated in shooting club where he had 30 sessions in this period. He had a lot of your friends, how many is unclear. He was a free mason, was four and a half meeting. He was with his mother and talked occasionally with her stepsisters on the phone. And his best friend said that they were together about eight times a year, at parties, ate dinner, and they were traveling to Budapest with a gang. In addition, he has been preparing since 2009, it is POLTI quite sure, to the terror plot. But a series of purchases from far and near. To be precise, there are 112 purchases from 90 vendors in 10 countries. All the purchases took place in autumn 2009.

Bæra turns around and gives Greenland a few notes on several A4 sheets. He welcomes them and continue to look at his laptop.

11:10 Defense Geir Lippestad: - Then enter and see, to find and evaluate, you'll work and pay. If we look at the action, as witnesses nor does it on a complete collapse of his disability. In all its horror, logistics, planning, and physical achievement to get to so much horror in such a short time. How this is ready, I think the report shows that the second has a more correct approach to his functioning than a report. We should also remember that one report says he had to move home to his mother because of the economy. There were reports of two more by the police. It was found out that he had 130,000 dollars on account. He could have chosen something else. The following year, when he sold the shares, he had almost a million dollars in assets, not liabilities.

- I did not have the situation when I was just old. There are important prerequisites for the difference between the backgrounds of the two reports. If the court finds that there is - there is no doubt that there is a change in focus - but it is not the requirement in ICD 10, but if he is disinterested, and aimless. The fact that you get interested in other activities shall not be included in the calculation of mental incapacity. That he is aimless is not true. He has had the intention to perform a cruel act of terrorism. Again, if the court finds that the evidence speaks most to report number two, it's easy to disregard the report number one. It is the first expert said that if the court takes into consideration other evidence.

- I will be a little short on the next point, which are neologisms. As I understood the prosecutor, it is not something you think exists anymore, but as the first two experts (...) I will be very short about it. I think now that we're done with my procedure around twelve. When it comes to all these new words, we see the striking difference between the two reports. Number 2 gets into the cultural landscape that the defendant is in, but a report has not done it the same way.

11:13 Defense Geir Lippestad: - What is certainly clear is that the words we have presented was explained by Gardell and Gule. They are commonly used words. They are not incomprehensible in his culture. The experts have googled most of the words, and found those who used online. So they are not incomprehensible in the cultural defendant resides. No other experts who have been inside and explained to have seen that Breivik has neologisms. The police, who have been over 200 hours of interviews with him, has not considered it as if there are words and phrases that are of the character.

11:14 Defense Geir Lippestad: - So it's probably fairly obvious that where we agree - the district attorney and I - that there is no neologisms. So it is with this perception, the first two experts argue that Breivik know what others think. This is perhaps what I amazed me the most that they can claim. There is nothing in the documents indicating that he knows what others think in the sense that he has a supernatural ability to get other thoughts from their heads. On the contrary, he said that "selling, I know what to press, and I'm good at it." Whether he is or not I do not know, but it is something quite different than thinking you have supernatural abilities to read others' thoughts.

- It has the ten weeks here in court, not in any way has emerged that he has the ability, although he has talked quite a bit. But I go relatively quickly through this, because I understood that we agree on this, but it is important that the whole is crumbling a bit away, when these obvious things that are presented by the first two expert witnesses are no longer present. So on to this with the method.

- For there are different methods used in the reports. And I think it is important to point out. For the mandate sent from the court is that it should be made two independent assessments by the two experts. It is an important point. For the first one has the greatest opportunity to reach a correct conclusion if you make independent assessments. This method differs usage significantly. Report number one, where the experts have met together. It is only the last couple experts who met together in the last call.

- And another important thing they did not write the minutes there and then, but it has come later. Report number two, they have experts met separately and did not know each other from before, and have made their assessments and ongoing notes before after a time met to coordinate to see if they were on the same plane of the assessments. There are important differences, you can enter the confirmation trap. Another important thing is the native data. Prosecutors said yesterday that he has placed considerable emphasis on the mother's information. And it is clear the mother is the major source of information.

11:19 Defense Geir Lippestad: - But the mother has given information in two settings. She has given statements to the police and she explains to the police. She has been ongoing for 22.7. And, in the statement she spoke not about his son's crazy or sick. What she says in all his statements to the police is that she does not understand what has happened. She talks about a good, kind son she has known all his life. After a while the talks with the psychiatrist, and she is informed that they shall be considered Breivik is sane, he should be punished or not.

11:19 Defense Geir Lippestad: - And when a mother receives the information. We do not know, because we have not received contradiction. When a mother is given the information that he may not be punished. Will not mom always look for the explanation? He must be sick. We have not received contradiction from the mother, we understand that. She has good reasons not to appear in court. But evidence of value must be compared with what she has said. What I miss in report number one is why the mother did not sirer something about how he has behaved to the police, but she says it to one expert.

- I have looked at it many times before, but another important methodological distinguish is that the report number you have not seen Breivik through a cultural context. I'm not saying that the report number one would conclude that report number two. But they had discussed and been critical of their own assessments. It chose to look at Breivik as an impossibility with what I said earlier. Another important thing that was mentioned by the prosecutor yesterday when it came to method was that the defendant was a pristine crime scene 10 August when they began their work. Breivik was a virgin site on 10 august? No. He had gone through seven police interviews and a series of meetings with me as a defender and a series of meetings with Ilas helsetjenste. A series of meetings with DPS Bærum and all prison officers.

- A crime scene was left untouched Breivik Utøya out on the evening 22 July. He was not the 10th august. As a matter of the report 1 have not taken up. Of course, a report came before in time, further actions. Maybe they get a better hold of Breivik's mental state. In Report No. 2 says that it might be an advantage to have actions at a distance, so you have a cool approach to it.

- It is also a point. And I think specifically it is a point when we hear the rationale for why Thurs the 1st expert meeting together. They thought it was both mentally demanding to meet alone. It says something about, it's completely understandable, but it says something that even the objective coolness can be important, that you come a little later on when to give their assessments. I also think it is methodologically more things in the first expert report should be discussed. They say that no one can decide on life or death and that it is an example of psychosis.

11:24 Defense Geir Lippestad: - But there is no one who can decide over life and death. None of us. It's a logical flaw in the reasoning. It should have been discussed and explained what they meant by this. Then we have an important methodological difference to, it is that there have been forced observation report number two has been enjoyed. This is important information when they have received. Now nearing the end and I do what I say is briefly what we have heard from other experts in court and what right they have to have the court vrudering whether there is any sanity or mental incapacity.

- There have been many experts who have been in contact with Breivik. Psychiatrist and psychologist IPS specialist Hansen has been in close contact with Breivik. IPS has, so far I have noted, had 21 conversations with Breivik and has considered the question of psychosis and treatment. [Arntzen: - It was after 10:08, the first talks with psykiatrene, did not it?] Yes. The first journal paper from the prison health service is from 09.09.

- But they have at least considered him continuously over many calls. We remember Flikke explaining that when a report came, so she brought in a psychologist specialist Erik Johannessen was to ensure the quality, because she thought he might be able to see something she had not seen. But he found no signs of psychosis. So we have a psychiatrist on the Ila, Rosenqvist, one of the indisputable leading psychiatrists we have right here in Norway, she has met Breivik three times and have not found any signs of psychosis. She explained clearly about this in court.

11:28 Defense Geir Lippestad: - As a prison doctor who is experienced, made the same assessments. Then we have the observation team, 18 pieces, and their mandate was to identify psychosis. They have an AVERAGE work experience of 20 years. It is clear that when they reveal the psychosis they do this from all disciplinary angles. They did it independently and had voted on at the end where one had thought maybe he saw signs of psychosis. In addition, the experienced prison officers who have not seen anything. All of the theorists who have been in court who have said something about the requirements for psychosis, have said they are unable to understand the diagnosis.

11:28Defender Geir Lippestad: - I refer back to the decision in the Court of Appeal, where it was the same situation, it was emphasized that those who had treated and looked at him told. Very short in the end, of the formalistic reasons, Breivik said himself, he understands, of course, that he is being punished for those actions. But he claimed necessity. As his defense I must say something about this. He has invoked the principle of necessity because he is a resistance fighter to safeguard Norwegian interests. He said terrorism clause must be interpreted narrowly in terms of international law.

- And he believes that these considerations are present. When it comes to custody, the statement from the defense to say the least possible punishment. Limited Time penalties are milder than custody. They are familiar with what is in the two reports. But referring to the action 22 July is a single act of violence, and that he henceforth has said he will work with the pen.

- The very conclusion I will say two words about the universal sense of justice. It is of course so it is right and what is stated here in the courtroom that will be crucial to this case. But the universal sense of justice when a person can be held accountable for his actions, he is guilty ability and understand that he has done something wrong, it is important and appears in several places, that to be psychotic, one must be so psychotic that everyone sees it. To the extent the universal sense of justice comes into play. Can no or very few see that a person is psychotic, it may be a factor.

11:32 Defense Geir Lippestad: - After this, and I am not sure how close down the claim. Because the penalty claims and the prosecutor as an acquittal, I have allowed myself to propose the following: "The prosecuting authorities alleging forced mental health care. ABB is considered the mildest possible way. "

It is now the prosecution to comment Lippestads procedure.

11:34 Defense Geir Lippestad: - [Judge Arntzen: - You do not take down the principle claim an acquittal?] No. Excuse me, excuse me, it was me who took off my glasses a little too early. It is an acquittal. And with that, prosecutors and legal aid lawyers, I say thank you. [Judge Arntzen: - If the prosecution to comment?] [Holden: - Honourable Court, I have a relationship that I want to point out and then comes Engh to supplement. The reason I want to take the word is the defense said of the other criteria in ICD-10 as I concerned. The criteria B, F and H, of thought disorder and neologisms. I heard the defense say that he took this fairly brief, since he understood that we had assumed that the conditions were not met.]

11:35 Prosecutors Svein Holden: - It is possible that we have left such an impression, but our desire was to convey the following point of view. We have not concluded as to the criteria or not. What we have said is that the basis for saying that these symptoms appeared in the written statement of the Husby and Sørheim appears to be weakly founded. We had wanted the mother's vision was discussed to a greater extent than is the case in the written product. But we have noted that Sørheim questions here in the court held that these symptoms were present during the observation and the experts in total found that there was a robust findings over the words that were used.

- We therefore chose to focus mainly on the basic delusion, and that I displayed the reasons I gave for it yesterday. Then Engh a small supplement. [Engh: - I think probably that Lippestad agree with us that I will now outline. It is from our side is important to have emphasized the fact that the court will now be sticking to. I will attach some comments to the defendant's change of its own greatness, his fade. He referred to the defendant allegedly said about the "Four sweaty guys in a basement." It happened here in court, it was the first time we heard it. We have had evidence about how the defendant has changed and it is important that we stay stuck in.

11:36 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - In an interview in October, used the indictment for the first time the word glossy picture of the thoughts he has for KTS further design. He continues in the same interview to elaborate on his grandiosity on uniforms, medals. Greatness idea is for what we perceive intact in this hearing.

11:39 Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: - Then comes the interrogation in March, this is a time when Breivik has become familiar with all the expert statement and know what the reason is that he is psychotic and he comes in an interview where the person took the examination has confirmed that there has been a tremendous change. He tones down, the air has gone out of the greatness of his thoughts about the Knights Templars existence and how it was oprettett in 2002, he maintained. I think this is where the problem lies, and makes the case difficult and report number two is difficult. Because this picture was the two new experts to deal with. They have admitted afterwards that it has made it difficult for us and we meet a man who knows the conclusion of a report number will appear sane. This is problematic.

- He knows exactly what it has been emphasized. He has even been joined by the professional game beneath, between psykiatre and psychologists about who should investigate him. As Torrisen said: "I think he has the concept of pompous of me." As we have heard from IPS that she largely had rationalized his actions 22 July. It is important to me, how hard it is. (...)

11:41 Defense Geir Lippestad: - [Judge Arntzen: - Engh. I see now on the amended claim, but it is only changed for the statement roman numerals 1 (...) So I suggest that attorneys Lippestad will change on the amended claim, and that we can take the indictment after lunch.] [Engh: - There is no disagreement between us (...) (...) [Arntzen : - Want to keep your reply now, attorneys Lippestad] I do it. It is very short. The data world is fine, you get fast answers. It is entirely appropriate that the public prosecutor said. It was in October hearing, which is important to point out is that he says that KT is a glossy picture.]

11:42 Defense Geir Lippestad: - [Judge Arntzen: - Is it fotsodlat he uses?] Glossy picture is the exact term. [Judge Arntzen: - And the concept of pompous?] No, glossy picture in court and he explained what he meant by that. We agree on that? Thank you. [Judge Arntzen: - When the court takes a lunch break at 12:45.]

11:42 VG: - The court has to break at 24:45.

When Breivik coming up from the basement after the break goes Lippestad over to him. They would obviously have a chat in the back room. The police follow as usual with out.

Then Anders Breivik Behring back again with the defenders.

12:51 VG: - The court is set.

12:54 Defense Vibeke Hein Bæra: - Administrator can I get an extension of the procedure provide a written statement? When handed over our claim type. Principal, transfer of Anders Breivik Behring to compulsory mental health care is not taken into account.

12:55 Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: - When we reached the final remarks from victims and survivors, and we begin with Sissel Wilsgård. [The judge asks the witness to tell where she was the 22 July] [Wilsgård - I was physically injured and was at work in justisdepartemenet and as a result of what I have figured little in the media in the bloody and less bloody version. That is why I have been asked to talk about my experiences and after-effects of the bomb on 22 July.]

12:55 Witness Sissel Wilsgård: - It has naturally enough been a major focus on the terrible tragedy on Utøya. Afternoon on 22 July, today for a 11 months ago, appeared as a horror day for all who were in or around the government building. The tragedy in and around the government quarter for us as individuals have been inconceivable, and contributed to the great sorrow for us, our families and friends.

- Six ministries plus the Prime Minister's office was almost bombed out. In these local areas have almost five hundred employees work. Approximately 200 were at work when the bomb went off. Approximately 75 people were in the area where the bomb exploded.

12:57 Witness Sissel Wilsgård: - Six to ministry employees three of those were from the Department of Justice and two were random passersby, were killed. We have also heard that nine were physically injured, seven a them very seriously. Several young men were hurt hard life. Of the 460 victims in the case, approximately 206 were registered with the physical damage to varying degrees. Approximately 100 have sought psychiatric or psychological help. A large number of families affected.

- Of those who never came back. There will always be someone missing in the family. For some of the families of uncertainty for a week, until they learned that it was their family member was killed. Anyone can imagine the lump in many of torn between hope and despair in a week (...) The most severely injured have had and still have their trauma processing. It takes time to turn to disability and loss of important functions.

- Several people have already been diagnosed to have post-traumatic stress. Many struggle with the psychological damage. How many are not quantified. Being exposed to a bomb explosion is unreal.

- As a nation we are spared this kind of events and thus have little readiness for how we should act in such a crisis, and what we should think of to save ourselves. We were in the government building reacted reflexively and came out. Some have struggled with unwarranted guilt that is not looking for others who do not slelv came out. Getting out meant climbing over the furniture and acceleration of the stairs, while still repressed fear of further explosions.

- Or that the bloc would collapse, or meeting with (...) the tower block, several people trapped before they were rescued. One can imagine the thoughts they had to contend with before it became clear what had happened. For most of us, the drama was over when we came out of the building, but more as employees, deaths and serious injuries. For some peace of mind were swept away that day.

1:02 p.m. Witness Sissel Wilsgård: - The 18 ministries to the Prime Minister's office is a working partnership, where one is interdependent. When a ministry out of service, you get the ripple effects of the work of the others. The bomb set six ministries out of service. About 2,000 employees lost their permanent place of work. Employees in these departments have faced major challenges, while the outside world has required the normal processing time.

- Bomb explosion has not only resulted in loss of work, but also changes in the structure. Changes that have contributed to uncertainty and insecurity for the employees. For the Justice Department has been a great challenge to obtain large enough space. The staff has had to work on a construction site while there have been large workloads and demands.

1:03 p.m. Witness Sissel Wilsgård: - The workload for many has been enormous, while they themselves have lost colleagues and themselves been victims of the bomb blast. In the ministries that make up the political leadership a few persons. For the Justice Department as equivalent to five people. Otherwise, the ministry staffed by regular employees who work to appear as non-political entities. We are employed based on an expertise of doing a job.

- To be bombed on his own work, wanted to kill because they worked in state administration felt unreal, absurd and incomprehensible. High density housing is now, naked, empty and sad and as an image of crime in the government building. But it stands proudly erect, and certainly not empty of meaning. We are many who believe that it will have to be used as a ministry, to honor those who died there 22 July 2011.

1:05 p.m. Witness Sissel Wilsgård: - Employees of the Ministry is part of a community in his own ministry and fellowship with other ministries. We also have colleagues in occupational health, we can seek assistance from. The random passers-by do not have such a network and many of them suffer alone. Deed made us all victims. We are in the conclusion of a trial in which all legal and democratic principles are observed, both the accused and for us.

- The case is unique and they are demanding. But I have confidence that the accused is sentenced in the same line with the principles applicable in all courts in Norway. I also have confidence that the Norwegian court has integrity and does not deviate from the principles of evidence.

1:06 p.m. Witness Kirsti Løvlie: - [Judge Arntzen: - Thank you. So it is Kirsti Løvlie. How are you affected by the July 22] I am the mother of Hanne Ekroll Løvlie. She was a political scientist at the Ministry of Labour where she worked closely with the Minister in the political department. She was a beloved and dear co-worker, we have learned. Not least, she was our beloved Hanne as I think back on.

- She has not lived at home since she graduated from high school, and this terrible day she would travel to the summer house in Tvedestrand, where we would celebrate her 30th birthday. When this happened, we were down there and we should get back her brother and sister in law her. Each of four she would be in Sandvika to be picked out of whom came from work. It was not.

- We did not contact, but thought it was so chaotic. We had to travel to Oslo, and installed ourselves in the apartment for our son. And it was time. We waited and waited and finally it was almost as we did not understand, where was the Male? What happened was that on Sunday afternoon then the Secretary of my son's apartment. The sentence that has burned itself into, "she was so close to the bomb." Then we realized that Jody was dead.

- But we did not get confirmation until Thursday evening. Then the priest and told him that it was Hannah and that they had identified her. It was almost a relief, it was absurd that week we went and waited and waited. But the message that it was Jody's body, it was almost a good message. We had gar talk to this man who was professional and had been out and helped to find them and identify her. It was soothing. He told us something about his work and how it had been.

1:10 p.m. Witness Kirsti Løvlie: - And then we should move on. Of course, with funerals and everything like that, but I will not take here. But we had so many helpers around us and many wanted us well. Hometown is Tyristrand it is on the west side of Tyrifjord. Neighbors heard shots from the fact Utøya. Luckily, I say, do not we Utøya from our house. So instead we live in was also affected by it in the community and local newspapers. But we've tried to stick to our cause that Utøya was cruel and forferdeleig, but we belong to the government quarter and it's been good to be with them here and we have become very familiar with.

- And feel it as well and are grateful for that. During the autumn, I began some work, I am a teacher in secondary school. It was good, many good colleagues, and we had to do things that are completely absurd for parents to do. We had to clean oopp her apartment in the city. It was absolutely terrible. To inherit the children's cups and plates, it's like so totally insane.

1:13 p.m. Witness Kirsti Løvlie: - But we did it. And a child's name into the rock is really quite bad. But we got a nice stone. So it is approaching Christmas, Hanne was a Christmas person, if one can put it that way. Always came home for Christmas, Christmas was her thing. When she was little she was with my dad in the woods and brought the Christmas tree. She was our gift distribution general, had full control of it. It was awful. We got through it. We had hoped that this trial, the we should not get until after a year.

- We had after Christmas to start thinking about what would happen 16 april. It was like a mountain that became bigger and bigger the closer we got. Aid attorney helped us a lot. To see Hannes last seconds of film. It was the hardest. She waited for his colleague outside the park that would stop that day and receive a card like that. It was her last job.

- When we saw her movements it was quite pretty tough. So we also read and was recommended autopsy report and what was needed. It was pretty tough issues, I must say. So there has been talk about the reports and the media was full of it, I think we managed to get us through it. My husband and my son probably read more about it than I did. I decided that this man should not I be afraid of.

1:14 p.m. Witness Kirsti Løvlie: - He had seen a prison meeting, it could not be dangerous for me to come here. I had decided, I'm in court. It felt like I owed Hanne and I would follow her all the way here and I thought that I would regret it. I wanted to jump off if I think it was necessary. We came here to town, then - this date as well everyone here knows by now - and thought, oh, ten weeks. Then we met up and were the first at the Grand [Hotel]. It was a soft and nice start. There was no press, it was calm to fine.

1:16 p.m. Witness Kirsti Løvlie: - And here we came the second week. And I must say, to go into that door down there that I've done a few times now, with heavily armed police, I never thought I'd make it. But it was just like when you came in here and sat down, I felt a kind of quiet. It is clear there have been terrible to listen to the perpetrator and hear what he has done. I think it was bad to listen to the universe he had. I thought maybe it was a lot, but I realize too, that this is a place he should come forward. And we should be grateful that we have a justice system in which all should come forward, no matter what they have done. And it has been good. But now I think that is enough.

- Now I think that when we are finished with this trial, then we should not have to hear something more to this man, we who are so severely affected. In this case I thought had a particularly strong confirmation that Hanne is killed. What might have comforted us is that Hanne died like that.

- And we are pleased that the court did not show pictures, but we were happy that after the autopsy report was all but dead, but then Killengreen and put some life in it and we got to see the beautiful people live out again. It is not common, but there is nothing that is common in this case here. There is much that is interesting and instructive, but I have not been able to take it all over me, I've gone back to normal and to 10th-grade students.

- That the Utøya, it is absolutely terrible, but we could not take over us all. Now here we are. At the end of the road. This is my trial. I am sure that the court gives us a right judgment. I'm sure this man will not scare me. He will never come out. I do not use much time and effort on this man and I think I will live well with what has happened here. Although perhaps not everything is resolved. And now we move on. There are now 22 June, about one month where 22 July.

1:19 p.m. Witness Kirsti Løvlie: - It is so special not only for us but for the whole country, I think. In a week we will highlight Hannes birthday. And so we have a holiday. And I wish everyone here could do, lying in a deck chair and have your toes in the sand. I think everyone deserves. And so should we, as it says on the tombstone, Hannes, "always in our hearts." There she is. [Applause in the audience.]

- [Løvlie get applause from the audience when she is finished. Arntzen dries her tears before she continues.] [Arntzen: - When we come to Helen Brenna.]

1:20 p.m. Witness Helen Brenna - I just have to sat I got a little emotional at last voice and I think it is a proud 10 class out there that are allowed to have a mother Hanne as a teacher. There is a story alone sums up what it was like to be on or Utøya survive today. It's not all recognize themselves in what I say happened today.

- It is simply because it was more than 500 people who experienced real terror on a small island. (...) We've known the feelings we had words, and do not yet have words for. Those feelings can be expressed in silence with others who have the same experience. (...) I own only my own story, but I will still try to draw a picture of how reality for those who survived are.

- I will try to describe the 11 months that have passed through a story. It is based on everyone I've talked to and their stories. I will probably say "I" a few times, but when I say "I", I mean in other words "we".

1:22 p.m. Witness Helen Brenna - I can see myself living what it is to get to Utøya 15 years old. Given all the stories, I will tell, I will maybe start in high school this fall, I may just be the same with my best friend who also is active in the AUF. Laughter is released from the start. So no one is laughing anymore. Everyone is afraid. It's been a bomb in Oslo. No one knows who is behind.

- It is safe because we are the world's safest place, we are Utøya. I'm scared already, therefore I leap really, people get confused and start to run. They look terrified out and I will be even more afraid. I see that someone falls and I see blood.

1:23 p.m. Witness Helen Brenna: - Is it war, we are under attack, it is a exercise, it can not be, they bleed for real, they bleed so much. Then I see my best friend  again. We went to Utøya together. We should begin in high school together. She feels I safe with. She can say anything to. And when I try to talk to her, she replies not. I run. Is it only I who live, why Mom and Dad, is it really safe to land? The next days and weeks is complete chaos.

- Sundvolden, all who come there, and all those who never got there. All that waiting, everyone freezes, anyone looking. Memory While, rosetog. I can not distinguish day from each other. Everyone says they understand me and everyone trying to comfort me. But they do not understand. People are not shot in Norway, I do not understand it even. And the only thing I think you understand me, my best friend, but she's not alive anymore.

- Is that how it feels like years someone dies? Is it so quiet? Is it so lonely? They buried her for a little while ago. Parents and grandparents carried the coffin. Although they are many years older than her. The church was full of young people as if there was confirmation. But there is no confirmation. It is not something similar once. I see how upset everyone is when she is dead. Why do I live when she is dead.

- Could I have done anything to save her. I could, I ran the more from her. It's probably a little bit my fault too. We should change places so that the others had escaped to be sad. Suddenly it is completely different sounds I did not notice before. Rubbish bins as containers, car alarms going off and sirens going off.

1:24 p.m.Witness Helen Brenna: - At night I have the light, for darkness is so scary, and when I close my eyes I see blood. I'm so tired, can not sleep. Afraid of being alone and afraid of being with others. In the paper it says that we are worthy and wise. I do not feel worthy and wise. I am confused and have wanted to scream.

1:26 p.m. Witness Helen Brenna: - It is also in the newspaper how to react, how we should react. It says it is OK to be angry. Sometimes I am angry, sometimes I'm sad, and sometimes I'm terribly, terribly afraid. I go to school, but I can not so much with me. I think every day that I'm going to stroke in a subject. It is not like me to get such characters as this, and I hope one day I will be myself again.

- With this story, I try to answer some of the experiences many people have told me about. Much of what people tell me recognize myself in. Anger, guilt, grief, loss and a feeling that there is no one in the world who understand us. We ask ourselves how this could happen.

- And I must admit that it felt a bit like it has been a low cloud cover after 22 July. Even if the sun comes out more and more often it was a while there was only darkness. There are many I miss and missed a great weight. The fact that someone is dead is that they never, never come back. They are gone for real. I have the pictures they sent me sms one they sent me.

- Missing and grief we have with us, but it changes little over time. A survivor Utøya said first went missing as a burden on your shoulders, now missing side by side with me. It keeps me down anymore. We think of it every day. Many feel that they have to comfort friends and parents constantly tell you that it goes well. We must explain to us all the time about how things are going my me and others all. And there are pundits, who think nothing about how we feel, is heavy. And the hardest is that if I say something about how I feel, be it for the benefit of what everyone else has it.

1:28 p.m. Witness Helen Brenna: - It is a burden to feel that one can not break away from what happened. All are passionate about it every day. In the news, every day is covered by what happened. This makes it difficult to work, hard to go to school and hard to go to a party. How I have it suddenly become a public question, it's really an intimate questions. Actually, it's very nice that people care about us.

- It's a very comforting in that. It has also been a very comforting in the health care system, friends, family, great psychologists, teachers facilitate and not least, AUF community been of help and support. We have done the best we can to take care of each other.

- For all others, one must remember that we are different people with different needs. We are not a homogeneous group and there is no blueprint for our reactions. The trial has been very long, but very useful. It seems that it is sorted and it is good that with the emotional life, that in court it is a form of organized chaos. Terror goal is to hit civilians and innocent people.

1:30 p.m. Witness Helen Brenna: - When we are struck by terror, wrap a form of logic. In Norway, we are not fired on by men in uniform, no right weapons against each other. We do not have bombs in Norway. When logic breaks, it takes a very long time to straighten it up again. It takes a long time that things will be like it was. Those who survived Utøya 22 July is not agreed on everything. But one thing we agree on all of them. When judgment falls, we will never see the perpetrator again.

- We will not see him randomly on the street. We will not even consider the thought that it is possible. We will not read the letters to the editor of his newspaper.

- We would not want him to have the opportunity to see the same feeds that got his own hatred to grow. We would not want it to grow in others. We who live and survived only to live our lives. A strong sense of stuck with me was when a girl who survived the fall Utøya said she was so angry.

- This girl is not a type that gets very upset. I asked her why. She said 'why is there no one who says it's going to be fine with us. Finally there is the good. It does you know, then you could put it in the newspaper "I think too. I still believe that it's going to be okay in the end. [Judge Arntzen: - Thank you] [hall clapping after Brenna's final remark]

1:32 p.m. VG: - The witness presents himself as Unni Espeland Marcussen, Andrine mum who was 16 years and was Utøya for the first time.

1:33 p.m. Witness Unni Espeland: - I can start to say something about how the 22 July in the afternoon started for us. Immediately after the explosion in Oslo, gave my husband a call from her daughter saying. She thought it had exploded in the block where she lives because she heard the bang and the block shook. A while later I got call from Andrine, who was on Utøya, and I could reassure her that it went well with the sister. 5:31 p.m. she called again. Then she cried, and she said there was no firing on the island.

- A boy took over the phone and told me what happened. The last thing he said was that he would take good care of Andrine for me, but that I had to call, lest they be discovered. Time 18.30.55, let the last message Andrine wrote to her big sister in her inbox. She managed to write that it was the one who was dressed as a policeman who shot at people.

- The fact that many were injured but she was not "himself" The last word was wrong. There was no more. "Himself." Andrine was killed on the southern tip as one of the latter. Losing a child in Norway in this way is unthinkable because it does not happen here. Andrine was only this summer's most beautiful adventure for us, the safest place in the world. That it really happened I still have difficulties in taking over me.

1:36 p.m. Witness Unni Espeland Marcussen: - The day and the week after 22 July raged life our house. It felt as if the whole life collapsed. The joy, security and freedom. It was as if we not only lost Andrine, but ourselves as well. There has been a year marked by a lot of waiting. A day to know that Andrine was among the deprivation end. A week to learn that she was killed. Half a year to get access to obduksjonensrapporten. Nine months it took before we got the information about the case Andrine had moved on the island.

- We have been waiting for the trial, we are waiting for the verdict, and we await the report of 22 July Commission. We are in great sorrow. While we have to deal with all that extraneous to the investigation, the media, the main hearing. We have no control of our own sorrow, because we constantly get ripped up wounds before they can grow.

- It's called grief work and it is the hardest job I have ever had. A job I have not chosen themselves, but a job that has been forced on me. There are days I know I can live without Andrine. Then the moments and days I can not understand that I can do it. It's the little things in life that can bring me out of balance. As to get into a shoe store and see all the Converse shoes that are on the shelves.

1:39 p.m. Witness Unni Espeland: - See vårjakkene the shops and say you should not buy the shoes and jacket å Baker the first cake with her and see little girls playing in eager talk on the bus and eat chicken wings and watch Idol. I expect that utedøren go up and hear "Hi Mom". It's so quiet in our house. In the morning holds no longer P3-morning broadcast. There is no sound from the TV to hook afternoon. It no longer fumbling in the 2 floor. The grief of our little girl, the light-hearted, caring Andrine with great commitment for a just world. Soon she was filling in 17 years.

1:39 p.m. Witness Unni Espeland Marcussen: - And terkselen to life (...) the grief of all that is not. Driving lessons she should be in full swing now, we were on vacation this summer. The excitement about taking food out of learning this fall. Grief of no longer taking part in Andrine life. In all this we will rebuild the new life our house. A family does not respond equally when the crisis occurs. To build the grief is a major challenge. We have different reactions and knows a wealth of emotions.

- We're sorry. We are angry. We feel the despair. We are frustrated. And we do not always agree on how the house will be built. It is demanding and it takes extra effort. For my own part, I'm not out in the job yet. It has been impossible for me to be Head teacher, a job where you will primarily be a resource for other people. But I've managed to get up every day, I have been able to socialize, I've managed to think that we will do this because Andrine would have wanted us to live again.

- The terrorist attack has affected the whole of our country and it does that there are many who care about being there with us, they are still there. We know and experience the great care from near and peripheral people. It's good to know that. We have also chosen to speak openly, and believe I have made a lower threshold to others to make contact. I have followed most of the main proceedings from Fredrikstad. I think it has been dignified, safe, and that it has been done in a good way.

1:42 p.m. Witness Unni Espeland Marcussen: - But in the past week there have been experts on killer's psyche. Because for me it does not subscribe if he is sane or not. For me, it's that he never has to come out. That we should not be afraid to meet him on the street even though I basically in the heart wish that had to take charge of the 77 killed, all the injured and all those affected by imprisonment. He has shown so much vigor through the planning and implementation of the action.

- There will be justified for me. [Spontaneous applause in the audience.] [Arntzen: - Thank you. Then there's Lara Rashid] [The witness present in court.]

1:43 p.m. Witness Lara Rashid: - I was Utøya with my sister 22 July. Me and Bano and her family moved from Iraq in 1999, we moved from the civil war and Saddam Hussein. I had nightmares about that Saddam Hussein would come to Norway, I had nightmares about that the police would come and fetch us. I really struggled with trauma, and it took a long time before I had picked me up again. Bano was a very big help for me. We were from a different culture.

- But it was we were always there for each other. It was not so much age difference between, us. It was two years. and we all shared secrets with each other I remember she said "you never to lose me, although you may lose friends." When I did not know that she would be the first thing I was going to lose. The day she died, felt like I died. I lost the spark of life, I slept all day and thought it was me who died.

- Since I slept so much and dreamed that I was dead and she was living, I managed to mix what was true and when I woke up I thought prime real heat was a nightmare. So after some months I realized it. I've had a bad conscience when I saw how upset people were. It should have been me, had not been so many sad.

- All traumas came back 22 July. I did not dare go to Oslo more. I was afraid of the police. Bano was not there to comfort me and it made it even harder for me. We had arrived in Norway, we had found peace of mind - we thought at least. I needed Bano, care, did Mom and Dad. When everyone was in mourning, I felt like I was just in the way. It destroyed their confidence. I felt I had to take responsibility for me and my little brother, as confirmed in the year.

1:47 p.m. Witness Lara Rashid: - We are so young to be as adults. I had to learn to live again. I was born a little sister, I have never lived a life that only the big sister. I had to learn to do things themselves. I had to learn to begin to trust other people. It has been a difficult time, I do not want to live like this. I wish Bano was here, I wish it had never happened. I like to read newspapers, but every time I open a newspaper, I see him.

- I feel I'll never get it back. He not only took reassurance from me, but he took the safest person in my life. Grief is as great yet missing are larger, but it has come something new. Hope. It was not there before. Bano did not die in vain. She died for the multicultural Norway.

- The funeral gave me motivation. The multi-cultural Norway I'm so proud of, it showed that he failed. And we must be proud of it. There is a big gap and it crushes me that Bano will not be in my wedding, or see my children or was confirmation of our little brother or celebrate his birthday. But I'm proud of her and know she wants me to be happy.

1:49 p.m. Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: - Thank you. When the court takes a break at two o'clock, and the last item on the program is that Breivik will make a final remark.

1:49 p.m. VG: - The court has to break at 14

2:04 p.m. VG: - The court is set.

2:04 p.m. Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: - When we come to the last item on the program.

2:05 p.m. Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: - And it is the defendant's final remarks. Go ahead, Breivik. [Some of the audience begins to leave the courtroom.]

2:07 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - Thank you. I think we can all agree that 22 July, there was a barbaric action. What happened on 22 July at its ministries and Utøya barbaric acts and I remember 21 July, I thought by then several years of planning that "tomorrow I shall die."

2:08 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - Also I'm going to 200 meters before the government quarter and then I thought, I remember, "about two minutes I'm going to die." What am I going to die for? That's what I'm going to talk about now. I will not be performing a speech now, because I gave a statement on 17 April, which includes all the arguments, at least most of it, I wanted to come by. So the explanation I came up with 17 april says it all, but there are some things I could not explain then, that I will try to address now.

- I'm going to start with a couple of things related to my sanity. Basically, then all people are regarded as even sane under the law. And for those who have considered me a total of 37 individuals who are highly qualified, out of 37 people, so, it is the 35 that have not found any symptoms at all. And of the 37 people so it's two people who have found a multitude of symptoms.

2:10 p.m.Anders Behring Breivik: - So it's pretty obvious what to emphasize. The 35 people or two people. I'm not going to go so much in existence, but there are quite a few indicators that indicate the existence that I have communicated in the interview that prosecutors naturally enough do not want to repeat here in court. I will not go into that now.

- It was one thing I wanted to make the claim unaccountable as it was communicated to the prosecutor that I want to go insane in the beginning. It is not true. In December or late November, when the first report came, so everyone was shocked and I was thinking what to do now. One waits for the debate matures, and I thought before I puncture the strategic debate and requires two new experts.

2:13 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - Also eventually I thought that now I have been betrayed by two psychiatrists who do not have access to calls, how can I ever trust a psychiatrist again? Therefore, I considered, and would not let me be examined again. Can I get two reports against me is over run. (...) Because I knew that the first has received so much criticism. I have taken part forskjelige thing, eh ... what is the conclusion of what I have explained, in particular 17 April is that the European democratic political model is not working. The arguments I have presented and I will continue to fremllegge emphasizes the need for a fundamental change of leadership in Norway and Europe.

- It started with World War II. In the 60s, as Labor decided that a large group of Pakistanis who were refused entry to Finland, and who came to Norway on a tourist visa would be granted residence. And it was as multicultural experiment in Norway started. Labor decided that Norway should follow Britain's example, with Asian and African mass immigration. When it comes to the ridicule of cultural conservatives, I have talked a lot about it already. I will not talk much about it. I will address some key points.

- What has been the main feature is that there has been a political discrimination. Cultural Conservative youth organizations receive no support. They are opposed. Maybe The only cultural conservative newspaper, we had Norway, Norway TODAY, lost pressure support.

- And this is an organization that has nothing to do with me whatsoever. The last 20 or 30 years there has been public support for extreme left organizations in Norway as Blitz, Serve People and Anti-Racist Center. Then I'll come to another point. The former leader of the future of our hands Steinar Lem. Before he died, so he gave a last message he had been burned alive for many years. It was something he felt he did not dare to say before he knew he was going to die.

2:16 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - It was that we fought for Tibetan rights and the Tibetan indigenous people, but it is not allowed to say in Norway today that Norwegians have as much right to a homeland as the Tibetans, and that our rights are equally important actually. He [Steinar Lem] was told by his doctor that he would die before too long, and only then, he dared to speak the truth what he really meant. I have written a part of the compendium on the absence of morality in Norway by 1968. There are major problems. The problem is that it lifted ideals in Norway today that are very harmful in Norway and will be very detrimental to our future.

2:17 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - When it comes to STDs and the sexual revolution, it's actually something that is being analyzed, and it has created major problems in Europe. The ideal being lifted up is to have sex with as many unknowns as possible, and instead of picking up the nuclear family, then you have a focus on the dissolution of the nuclear family, with the problems it creates. For example, "Sex and the City" ideal, where Samantha and Carrie, who then through the 100-200 episodes of the series, has had sex with hundreds of men. It is those ideals that are lifted up today.

- This is a disease. These sick ideals should be graded and protected by our society. So you get to neglect of their duty to the family and the nation. People will take education, they travel, they are 35 before they start having children. Women should begin having children in their 20s. Our birth rate is below subsistence level.

- I will not go very much into it. Protection of the status quo. One of the most influential people in Norway, Arne Strand in the Times has had many statements on press support. He is an advocate for everyone on the right side to the right of Carl I. Hagen, shall be excluded from democracy. He says openly that pressure support is necessary to preserve the current political hegemony.

2:20 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - We must protect the hegemony, we must not let people on the right side will express themselves. Press support ensured that Norway will never be a democracy by those on the far right will never get into the debate. Some eskempler I not told of the 17 april. Cause and effect of politically motivated violence. Just to name a few committed by those in power in Norway as a whole, is likely to trigger violence, all counter-reactions. It is important that the Labour Party, so as not to judge, this is back to WWII. Holden said that not many were sent to the psychiatric ward in Norway, only Hamsund and Justice Risnes. I'll talk about a couple cases of it.

- Well, it's not a secret that many cultural conservatives and nationalists was defused with the help of psychiatry. Many of the members of the National collection was sent to madhouse of Labor after the war. Halldis Neegaard Østbye, Quisling's secretary and NS-ideologue such as the release of the book "Jews' war" in 1943. She died at the end of Dikemark madhouse. Skifabrikk was of Labor taken from her and her husband by krigsoppgjøret.

- And Knut Hamsun we know. The unconstitutional, unjust krigsoppgjøret is unconstitutional and will be the truth if it becomes known. The illegal judgments will be canceled and compensation given to the relatives.

- Also non-NS-ers who were opposed to the Labour Party was tried declared crazy. An example is the editor Toralv Fanebust, when the attempt failed, they gave him a lengthy prison sentence for having written about Central Labor people about their actions before and after the war.

- His grandson has recently released book "war history - settlement with the myths" about how they tried to (...) What else has the political power made environment that is likely to provoke violent resistance? Fædrelandspartiet was about 0.5 percent of the vote in 1993, which was the first time they ran for elections. Bjarne Dahl in 1993 tried to legitimate political innvandiringsmotstand. On a square meeting in Oslo, he smashed his face with an iron pipes, broken jaw and knocked out teeth after attack from some blitzere. Party leader and Professor Harald Trefall was also hit in the face of something that was thrown. The party chairman was bleeding from a wound in ansitket. When a horrified spectator tipped Dagbladet about this violent attack, he received the following response from Dagbladet: "Is not it good then?".

- 28 June 2002 committed the parliamentary parties of their own democratic death. They passed a new law where all parties who did not receive at least 5,000 votes in the last election, was stricken. They must therefore set list on Liki line with all others who want to set list. They must collect signatures 5000 under stringent restrictions. It is almost impossible to start a new party in Norway today. In Sweden, the requirement is 1500 signatures.

- PST unrestrained praise of themselves on how they have managed to crush Vigrid. They have managed to summon all the young people in the organization and their parents to meet their police. PST has been able to crush the organization through the harassment of its young members.

2:27 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - In addition, he ran PST extensive harassment by the head of the Vigrid, Tore Tvedt. Among other things, extensive monitoring and husrassia, arrest and made sure that he had repeatedly thrown out of rented homes. At a school debate 28 August in connection with parliamentary elections in 2009, the party leader in Norway patriots shot in the forehead so that he gets a severe bleeding ulcer and must leave the meeting. The meeting continued as if nothing had happened. School administration or the police did nothing at all to do something about the attack on the party leader.

2:27 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - Before the municipal elections last year, the Christian Coalition Party attacked by a person belonging to the SOS-racism, they are communists, on the stand. Such occurrences provoke course all with national attitudes in this country. That has not happened before the 22 counter-reactions July amazes everyone who has followed the national trend. They are obviously waiting for something. We can see how they have been doing exercises on scenarios like what happened. The subject, however, avoids the politisike environment that governs the country to get into. There is nothing in their actions that motivates such acts, they argue. (...) It gives dark outlook for our country.

- Labor and the Soviet Union. It is well known and documented that the Labour Party before the 2nd World War II received support from the Soviet Union. However, it is wrong to claim that Labour is a full-fledged communist party. They do not support the planned economy. Hence the expression kulturmarxister or semi-Communists. Thorvald Stoltenberg had code names in the KGB. Even Jens Stoltenberg had a code name, "checks" in the KGB archives. These two authors trying to publish, but they were stopped trying.

- And the two books, one "The eagle has landed" by Reiulf Steen. I do not think it has been stopped. But I think there's a new book by Christopher Andrew who has been stopped. The problem with Labor is not their communist past, but that they refuse to deal with it. As Party Secretary Raymond Johansen said, they owe the international agreements when they justify their immigration policy.

- Instead of standing for the fact that they want to transform Norway ethnically and culturally. Raymond Johansen is intelligent enough to know that Japan and South Korea have experienced the same bustle of the UN on refugees and asylum seekers. Japan and South Korea have learned to say no. They do not want the country to be used as a dumping ground for the birth rate from the 2 or 3 world.

2:31 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - The political model in Japan and South Korea is the evidence that countries that say no to mass immigration in the long run will be strong than those open to mass immigration. (...) We will experience great ethnic, cultural and religious conflicts. It is these conflicts that led to 22 July. This is of the Labour Party and Foreign Minister. Had they had any integrity they would admit why they want mass immigration. In other words, they have exactly the same agenda as the social democrats in Sweden, Denmark, Germany and the UK.

2:33 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - Individuals who have signified support for cultural conservative organizations, have been systematically ridiculed, harassed and persecuted in Norway and Western Europe after the 2nd World War II. In Norway, more than lost his job and been branded as racist for the reason that they have been opponents of immigration. An example is Remi Huseby, who miostet his job after he was labeled as an intolerant and vicious right-wing extremist, for the reason that he was opposed to the Norwegian state ideology, multiculturalism.

- As a result, his employer felt under pressure to fire him and he lost his job. This is one case that documents a journalist and editor ridicule and persecution of the cultural conservatives from WWII to the present day. Worst of all is that this demonization is better than being ignored. Being ignored is the worst of everything.

2:35 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - In hundreds of cases in Europe and Norway, cultural conservative, anticommunist and nationalist been pushed to suicide by publicly burning labeling and demonization. It is the same as it was in Sovjetunioen. So, another point that I considered not to include. Cultural self-loathing. Norwegian society is suffering from a cultural psychological disorder that manifests itself through self-contempt for Norwegian ideals.

- This collective cultural psychosis caused by decades of kulturmarxisme. As a good example is the Euro Vision contributions over the past four years. We left a White Russian asylum seeker, probably with tartarbakgrunn, (...) It is in itself good that we rarely allow an applicant represent us. But what is going on? A few years later we let Stella Mangwi win with a bongo song. What is Norway doing, which sends an applicant as an ambassador? Is it lack of Norwegians in Norway or they suffer from selvforrakt? So we allow an asylum seeker from Iran win. This is an insult to all Norwegians (...)

- The answer is simple. A great many people suffer from cultural delusions, and need for immediate medication, with the immediate introduction of cultural protectionism and the Nordic ideal. So I'm going to ... Regarding the definition of the word indigenous, then the words of the original or old residents. It is true that is not ethnic Norwegians are not indigenous. We know of course that the UN does not recognize ethnic Europeans as indigenous. But we must look on the UN agenda and the creation, when the Axis powers were defeated during the 2 World War II. For example, Baroso which has been the highest leader of the United Nations for many years. Baroso was a member of the Portuguese Communist Party for years. This demonstrates the kind of people who have power in the UN.

- So to get back to the definition of the word indigenous. There is no general definition. Europe's cultural nationalists and conservatives are using a different definition of indigenous peoples. The right definisionen are old or original people. Why do indigenous activists in other parts of the world (....) Why do they support and prices, while indigenous activists from Europe are labeled as racists.

- The battle is identical for all indigenous fighters namely, to fight against ethnic and cultural annihilation of his people against immigration. The fact that they are supported, while we are fighting as we were a disease is a ULEV injustice. Regarding deconstruction. When it comes to the ongoing ethnic deconstruction I would recommend everyone to read the essay [mention this by name] of David Coppell, and Johan (...). Regarding Mullah Krekar was called as a witness before.

- The reason why we would call into Krekar was to illuminate the true believers of Islam's view of Europe. He calls himself a Kurdish religious leader. (...) He is one of the few Muslim leaders who are honest with Islam's takeover of power in Europe. "In Denmark they printed designs, but it results in support of Islam continues to increase. I and every Muslim is a proof. (...) We are going to change you. Look at the development of the population in Europe where the number of Muslims are breeding like mosquitoes. Every Western woman in Europe is 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries give birth to 3.5 children. (...) "Krekar said.

2:42 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - I also remind you that Muammar Gadaffi, who was recently killed by NATO in March 2007 said: "There are signs that Allah will bestows us with a victory in Europe, without even using swords . We do not need terrorists, we need no suicide bombers. The millions of Muslims in Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades. "Kosovo is a very good example that I have not talked about. In 1900, 60% Christians in Kosovo, 40% Muslims. In 1913 the figure was 50%. 1948, 72%, in 1971, soap, there was 79 percent Muslim. In 2008, after NATO had bombed our Serbian Christian brothers, it was 93% of Muslims in Kosovo.

- From being a Christian countries, Kosovo has become a Muslim country. Lebanon has some commentary by the press which indicated that they were an occupied state. In 1911 it was 21 percent Muslim. Today there are more ... approximately 80 percent. This is demographic warfare.

- And it's a war as recognized in Europe and Norway. In the case of Pakistan it is not only war against Christians. It was 25 percent Hindus in Pakistan in 1941. In 1948 it was 17 percent. Today, fewer than 1 percent Hindus. The Pakistani tolerance for dissidents. In Bangladesh in 1941 was 30 per cent Hindus. Today, fewer than 8 percent.

2:44 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - As you can see on the explosive demographic development of Muslim countries. In 1951 there were 33 million in Pakistan. Today they are approaching 200 million. From 33 million to nearly 200 million in 60 years. Officially, they operate with a birth rate of 3.58, it is of course fake. Media likes to placate the Muslim majority supports democracy, but it is not true. A survey conducted by the University of Maryland, where 4,000 Muslims were requested, shows that 65 percent of Muslims want to unite all Muslim countries to kailfat, and 65 percent want to implement a strict interpretation of Sharia law.

2:46 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - When I come to the last point. Aid lawyers had previously called me a child killer. But we know that the average age of the island was over 18 years, even if one removes the adults. The average age of soldiers in the world wars is 18. Many of our soldiers in Afghanistan is 18. Does that mean that we send children to war? The authorities are themselves guilty of mass murder of children in hospitals across the country. Thousands of children are killed every year through abortion. Muslims do not take abortion because Sharia does not allow it. Labor is thus guilty of mass murder, while using the low birth rate to justify mass immigration.

- The judges who sit here today can judge me as they feel. If you choose to acknowledge my claim of necessity, you will very effectively sending a lot of shock waves through the illegitimate groups are present (...)

2:46 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - The court should remember that the biased judges who worked for Hitler's Germany was convicted of the story after the war. Likewise, history will judge the judges in this matter. History will show whether the condemned man who tried to stop the evils of our day. History shows that sometimes you have to complete a barbarism to stop an even greater barbarism.

- My brothers in the Norwegian and European resistance movements are sitting there and watching this case, while they are planning new attacks. They may be responsible for as many as 40,000 die. The other day it was found explosives at a Swedish nuclear power plants, which indicates that my brothers in the Swedish Resistance him something to do with this. In the lecture notes I describe how to attack Swedish, German (...) nuclear power plant. It is intended to break the back of (...) PST knows that militant nationalists have access to weapons that can create (...) I follow my duty to warn about this because it can be prevented if the will is there. In the compendium, I described a solution that can prevent conflict with the ultra-nationalists.

- The smartest thing that could have been done is to give us autonomy, autonomy within a certain area of ??Norway. The people who oppose mass immigration and multiculturalism. In other words, that the national conservative, orthodox Christians and the National Socialists. Such a solution would be good for both parties. Marxists and liberals did not have to know our anger and forbitring and complaining of the current state. And we did not have to live in a multi-ethnic hell. A solution like this can be used in all European countries and can thus prevent further escalation of the conflict between cultural conservatives and multiculturalists.

- The starting point could be that they get control over an area equivalent to about 1-2 per cent of the country and area increases proportionally with the growth. If we do not succeed and flourish will not the autonomous state could be developed. This political model similar to the political solution related to indigenous peoples in other parts of the world.

2:50 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - For the alternative is that we focus on the takeover of the entire country of Norway which Marxists and liberals would be very little satisfaction. But the current regime is not interested in going dialogue with us so we have nothing to lose and the conflict will escalate over the next few years. It might not be tactically to do this in that the prosecutor "gunner" on the mental incapacity, but I must express my peace settlement that could save many lives in the future.

2:53 p.m. Anders Behring Breivik: - This trial should be about finding the truth. And the documentation of my assertions, they are truthful? If they are true, how could I have done is illegal? Norwegian academics and reporters working together and make use of (...) methods to deconstruct Norwegian identity, Christianity, and the Norwegian nation. How can it be illegal to engage in armed resistance against this? Prosecutors wondered who had given me a mandate to do what I did. Was the KT Network? I have answered this before, but do it again. It is the universal human rights, international law and the right to self-defense that gave the mandatetet to carry out this self-defense.

- The whole thing has been triggered by the impact of the actions of those who consciously and unconsciously destroy our country. Responsible Norwegians who feel a duty, is not going to sit and watch that we are made to minorities in their own country. We are going to fight. The attacks on 22 July preventive attack, in defense of my ethnic group and I can not acknowledge guilt. I acted on behalf of my people, my religion and my country. I therefore demand that I be acquitted.

2:53 p.m. Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: - When did you finish your remarks, Breivik. Then the negotiations concluded and the matter will be brought up to judgment 24 august. Then the court adjourned.

3:00 p.m. VG: - The court is adjourned. Judgment falls 24 august.