Forensic psychiatric statement -- Anders Behring Breivik (I)

In about two mon­ths, the trial against the ter­ro­rist and mass mur­de­rer Anders Behring Brei­vik will start in Oslo.

The out­come of the trial -- whether Brei­vik will be detai­ned in jail or in a high-security psychiatric hos­pi­tal for most of his remai­ning life -- will largely depend on whether the court upholds the dia­gno­sis given by the two for­en­sic psychia­trists who found Brei­vik to be insane, a con­clu­sion that was sub­se­quently con­fir­med by an expert panel on behalf of the offi­cial aut­hority on for­en­sic medicine.

Under nor­mal cir­cums­tan­ces, the psychia­trists’ report would not have been pub­lis­hed. Neit­her would their fin­dings have been ques­tio­ned by the court. In this case, how­e­ver, the Dist­rict Court of Oslo deci­ded to appoint a second team of experts to assess Breivik’s men­tal health -- a task they might not be able to carry out, since he has refu­sed to cooperate.

Due to the heated pub­lic debate about the two experts’ con­clu­sion, or per­haps to keep the heat on level with com­mer­cial aspi­ra­tions, the Nor­we­gian daily news­pa­per VG deci­ded to pub­lish their report (withhol­ding per­so­nal details), alt­hough this was highly ques­tio­nable from an ethi­cal point of view, given that the infor­ma­tion cle­arly was obtai­ned by a breach of pro­fes­sio­nal secrecy -- as has hap­pe­ned so often in this case, much to the regret of e.g. the police and the per­sons involved.

It is an open ques­tion to what extent all this con­tro­versy affects the legal sys­tem, but it doubt­les­sly has numerous poli­ti­cal, per­so­nal and social psycho­lo­gical impli­ca­tions. The media efforts made in order to under­mine the cre­di­bi­lity of the for­en­sic psychia­trists seem to be moti­vated by a refu­sal to come to terms with Breivik’s rat­her obvious insa­nity. Imme­dia­tely after 22 July 2011, a mas­sive media chorus main­tai­ned that his ideo­logy was to blame, poin­ting more or less expli­citely the fin­ger against anyone who ques­tions mass immi­gra­tion and the mul­ti­cul­tural ideo­logy, alt­hough most people would pri­vat­ely admit this is an increas­ingly hard thing not to do. Lately, a maca­bre dance is emer­ging between Brei­vik and the news media, some of which even con­si­der pub­lish­ing his essays, thus pro­vi­ding him with the microp­hone he so badly wants.

Since the psychia­trists’ report has alre­ady been leaked, there is no lon­ger any rea­son not to share it with the inter­na­tio­nal com­mu­nity, the judgmen­tal power of which could hardly be les­ser than that of a trau­ma­tized Nor­we­gian pub­lic, which has basi­cally gone pos­tal. (Mean­while, lots of regu­lar people have shut out the grim rea­lity, refu­sed to even look at the news­pa­pers and wit­hdrawn from dis­course. It is a tale of two men­tal universes).

What follows below is not a tra­ditio­nal manual trans­la­tion of the psychiatric report. It is a slightly cor­rected machine trans­la­tion of the Nor­we­gian text, which was obtai­ned by scan­ning and opti­cal cha­rac­ter rec­og­nition of the ori­gi­nal docu­ment. I say slightly, because the human efforts have mostly been limi­ted to cor­rec­ting errors com­promi­sing under­stan­ding -- wit­hout seeking styli­s­tic perfec­tion. As the state of the art of machine trans­la­tion impro­ves, which it does unin­ter­rup­tedly, above all for lan­guage com­bi­na­tions invol­ving Eng­lish, this is somet­hing that will be seen more frequently.

This is the first of no more than ten instal­ments that will be pub­lis­hed from time to time during the next weeks in order to have the whole 240 page docu­ment ready before the trial begins in April.

* * *

For­en­sic psychiatric state­ment
given on 29 Novem­ber 2011
to the Oslo Dist­rict Court
pur­suant to the appoint­ment on 28 July 2011
with com­ple­tion of the man­date on 11 August 2011.

Case no.: 11-120995EN E-OTI R/08

The indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion:
Name: Brei­vik, Anders Behring
Born: 13 February 1979
Address: Åsta east/Ila state pri­son and deten­tion cen­ter
Mari­tal sta­tus: Single
Pro­fes­sion: Self-employed
Natio­na­lity: Norwegian

Experts:
Name: Head of depart­ment / spec­ia­list in psychia­try Tor­geir Husby
Address: Dia­kon­hjem­met hos­pi­tal, Psychiatric depart­ment Vin­de­ren
PO Box 85, Vin­de­ren, 0319 Oslo
Name: Spec­ia­list in psychia­try Synne Sør­heim
Address: XXXXX Johann­es­burg, South Africa

 

Con­tents

1. For­ma­lities
1.1 Man­date
1.2 Char­ges
1.3 The cir­cums­tan­ces regar­ding the obser­va­tion
2. Back­ground docu­men­ta­tion
2.1 Assess­ment of police docu­ments to be reported in the for­en­sic psychiatric state­ment
2.2 Pre­li­mi­nary obser­va­tion
2.3 State­ments of vic­tims, doc. 05
2.3.1 Vic­tims of the cri­mi­nal act at the Govern­ment buil­dings
2.3.2 Vic­tims related to the cri­mi­nal acts on Utøya
2.3.2.1 Vic­tim XXXXX, Doc. 05,02,04
2.4 State­ments to the police given by the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion
2.4.1 Expla­na­tion of 22 July 2011, doc. 08.01
2.4.2 Incar­ce­ra­tion sum­mary 23 July 11
2.5 Sum­mary of the ques­tioning of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion on DVD
2.5.1 Inter­ro­ga­tion, recor­ded on CD, dated 22 July 2011
2.5.2 Furt­her inter­ro­ga­tions of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion recor­ded on DVD
2.6 Exa­mi­na­tions of wit­nes­ses
2.6.1 Wit­ness XXXXX, mot­her of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, doc. 09.08
2.6.2 Wit­ness XXXXX, half sis­ter on the father’s side of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, doc. 0 9,09
2.6.3 Wit­ness, XXXXX, clo­sest fri­end of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, doc. 09.30
2.6.3.1 Inter­view 23 July 2011
2.6.3.2 Inter­view 17 August 2011
2.6.4 Wit­ness XXXXX, fri­end of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, doc. 09.39
2.6.5 The wit­ness XXXXX, fri­end of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, doc.09.42
2.6.6 Wit­ness XXXXX, girl­fri­end of a fri­end of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, Doc. 09.55
2.6.7 Wit­ness XXXXX, fri­end of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, doc.09.60
2.6.8 Wit­ness XXXXX, fri­end of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, doc.09.67
2.6.9 Wit­ness XXXXX, acquain­tance of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, doc.09,132
2.6.10 Wit­ness XXXXX, for­mer wife of the fat­her of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, doc.09,261
2.6.11 Wit­ness XXXXX, a for­mer fri­end, doc 09289
2.6.12 Other wit­nes­ses with per­so­nal know­ledge of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion
2.6.13 Wit­nes­ses on the main­land (Utøya doc. 09,01,01, 09,01,02 and 09,01,15)
2.6.14 Utøya: Report from head of police ope­ra­tion Gås­bakk, doc.07,01,01
2.7 Child Wel­fare Service/Social Wel­fare Service/Child and Ado­le­scent Psychia­try
2.7.1 Child care case 1981-1984
2.7.2 Child custody case 1983
2.7.3 Child care case 1994-1995
2.8 Com­pen­dium writ­ten by the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, also referred to as the mani­festo
2.8.1 Assump­tions for the expert review of the com­pen­dium
2.8.2 Impor­tant remark
2.8.3 Gene­ral con­si­de­ra­tion
2.8.4 Spec­ial con­si­de­ra­tions
2.8.4.1 Fun­da­men­tal delu­sions of great­ness
- Knights Temp­lar
- Mar­tyr­dom
- Inter­view with him­self: Furt­her stu­dies, comp. page 1605
- Knights Temp­lar Lodge, com­pen­dium page 1682
- Additio­nal com­ments on the delu­sions of great­ness
2.8.4.2 Gene­ral enemy con­cept, para­noia and great­ness
2.9 The Pub­lic Health Aut­hority’ expert opi­nion regar­ding intox­i­ca­tion
2.10 Labo­ra­tory report from the Nor­we­gian labo­ra­tory for doping ana­ly­sis, OUS
2.11 Let­ter to the mot­her from the sis­ter of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion, from 2009 or 2010
3. Infor­ma­tions obtai­ned
3.1 Gene­ral practitio­ner XXXXX medi­cal cen­ter
3.2 Follow-up by health care ser­vice at Ila pri­son
3.3 MRI
4. Inter­views with per­sons who know the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion
4.1 Inter­view with the mot­her of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion by both experts on 14 August 2011
5.2 XXXXX
5. Back­ground and expla­na­tion by the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion
5.1. The first inter­view with both experts on 10 August 2011
- Intro­duc­tory remarks
- Brie­fing of the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both experts on 10 August 2011
5.2 Second inter­view by both experts on 12 August 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both experts on 12 August 2011
5.3 Third inter­view by both experts on 23 August 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both experts on 23 August 2011
5.4 Fourth inter­view by both experts on 25 August 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both experts on 25 August 2011
5.5 Fifth inter­view by both experts on 30 August 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both experts on 30 August 2011
4.6 Sixth inter­view with both experts on 1 Sep­tem­ber 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both experts on 1 Sep­tem­ber 2011
5.7 Seventh inter­view with both experts on 5 Sep­tem­ber 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both experts on 5 August 2011
5.8 Eighth inter­view with both experts on 13 Sep­tem­ber 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both experts on 13 August 2011
4.9 Ninth inter­view with both experts on 16 Sep­tem­ber 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both the experts on 16 Sep­tem­ber 2011
4.10 Tenth inter­view with both experts on 20 Sep­tem­ber 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both experts on 20 Sep­tem­ber 2011
5.11 Ele­venth inter­view with both experts on 22 Sep­tem­ber 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both experts on 22 Sep­tem­ber 2011
5.12 Twelfth inter­view with both experts on 2 Novem­ber 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by both experts on 2 Novem­ber 2011
5.13 Thirte­enth inter­view with expert Husby on 21 Novem­ber 2011
- Pre­sent sta­tus by expert Husby on 21 Novem­ber 2011
6. Psycho­met­rics
6.1 Selection of tests
6.2. Glo­bal Assess­ment Func­tioning (GAF)
6.4 SCID 1
6.5 MADRS
6.6 YMRS
7. Sum­mary
8. Discussions/assessment
8.1 Intro­duc­tion
8.2 Dia­gno­s­tic assess­ment
8.3 Detai­led respon­ses to man­date
9. Conclusion

 

1. For­ma­lities

1.1 Man­date

Gene­ral

1. The experts are reque­sted to con­si­der the items listed below as part of a for­en­sic psychiatric exa­mi­na­tion. The experts can coope­rate in the pre­pa­ra­tion of the writ­ten state­ment, but it is assu­med that they make inde­pen­dent assess­ments. It must be cle­arly descri­bed how the experts have wor­ked and in what areas they may have dif­fe­rent assessments.

There shall be a source refe­rence for all infor­ma­tion inclu­ded in the decla­ra­tion (for example, infor­ma­tion from case docu­ments, health records and per­sons who know the indi­vi­dual under obser­va­tion [here­af­ter referred to as Brei­vik, translator’s remark]).

All con­clu­sions must be sub­stanti­a­ted. Uncer­tain­ties in the assess­ments should be emp­ha­sized. If the experts have to base their assess­ment on a per­cep­tion of the facts of the case that are not read­ily appa­rent from the docu­ments or that may be uncer­tain or dis­puted, this must be expli­citly stated. Then it should also appear whether the experts’ assess­ment would have been dif­fe­rent if anot­her fact had been applied.

If there is a need for furt­her investi­ga­tion to iden­tify the pre­mi­ses of the for­en­sic psychiatric assess­ment, the experts may con­tact police prose­cutor Kraby at the Oslo Police District.

2. The experts shall cli­ni­cally exa­mine Breivik’s life before, during and after the cri­mi­nal acts, with par­ti­cu­lar emp­ha­sis on beha­vior, inclu­ding psycho­lo­gical and social func­tioning and any pos­sible dise­ase pro­gres­sion, as well as under­gone treat­ment. Rele­vant infor­ma­tion should be obtained.

The latest ver­sion of the inter­na­tio­nal dia­gno­s­tic sys­tem (past ICD-10) must be used for dia­gno­sis and dif­fe­ren­tial dia­gno­sis rele­vant to the for­en­sic psychiatric assessment.

If the man­date con­tains ques­tions about pro­gno­sis, the experts must spec­i­fi­cally describe the met­hod they use in the investi­ga­tion and what pos­sible sources of error exist.

If furt­her investi­ga­tion or tes­ting is requi­red to respond to the man­date, the experts are asked to carry out this. If the experts are of the opi­nion that anot­her expert should carry out such an inte­rim report, the dele­ga­ting aut­hority must be con­tacted for approval.

Assess­ment of sanity and pos­sible rea­sons for penalty reduction

3. The experts are asked to con­si­der whether Brei­vik was psycho­tic, uncon­scious or men­tally han­di­cap­ped to a high degree at the time of the cri­mi­nal acts (Penal Code § 44).

4. If the experts con­clude that Brei­vik was not in a con­dition referred to in para­graph 3, they must con­si­der whether Brei­vik at the time of the cri­mi­nal acts:

had a serious men­tal dis­or­der with a sig­ni­fi­cantly impai­red abi­lity to rea­li­s­ti­cally assess his rela­tion­ship with the out­side world, though not being psycho­tic, or

was mildly men­tally retar­ded, or

acted under a strong con­scious­ness dis­tur­bance (Penal Code § 56 c).

5. If the experts believe that Brei­vik at the time of the cri­mi­nal acts had a dis­tur­bance of con­scious­ness that comes under the Penal Code, §§ 44 or 56 c, the reason(s) for this must be investi­ga­ted. The experts shall not take a stand on whether the dis­tur­bance of con­scious­ness was self-inflicted.

6. The experts are asked to con­si­der whether Brei­vik was psycho­tic at the time of the investigation.

In addition if the par­ti­cu­lar sanc­tions in case of men­tal insa­nity are applicable

7. If the experts believe that Brei­vik was in a con­dition descri­bed in the Penal Code § 44, or they are in any doubt about this, they are asked to investi­gate the pro­gno­sis for the disease/condition. The experts are asked to con­si­der what treat­ment and what other measu­res are nee­ded to obtain an opti­mal pro­gno­sis, the improve­ment one can then achieve, and the time frame for this. The sup­port that Brei­vik is get­ting from the health care sys­tem shall be par­ti­cu­larly examined.

The experts are also asked to exa­mine the pro­gno­sis, inclu­ding the risk of future vio­lence, if Brei­vik does not rece­ive such treatment/follow-up.

8. Deten­tion

The pro­gno­sis for the defendant’s beha­vior and per­so­nal func­tio­nal abi­lity - inclu­ding the risk of vio­lent beha­vior - it to be assessed, and the experts are asked to describe the con­ditions that must be met for an opti­mal pro­gno­sis, as well as the factors that would indi­cate a poor pro­gno­sis. The extent to which any dia­gno­ses can be modi­fied by treat­ment must be explained.

1.2 Char­ges

On 22 July 2011 the chief of police in Oslo repre­sented by police lawyer Mette Hal­dor­sen has char­ged the detai­nee for vio­la­tion of:

Penal Code § 147a, first para­graph, let­ter a

for deli­be­rately inter­fe­ring seriously a func­tion of fun­da­men­tal impor­tance to society, the exe­cutive aut­hority, by a cri­mi­nal act descri­bed in §§ 148 and 233, second para­graph, see § 232.

The basis for this is the following cir­cums­tan­ces and the com­pli­city in these:

On Fri­day 22 July 2011 at hours 15:26 in Akers­gata 42 in Oslo, he cau­sed explo­sion and fire as men­tio­ned in the Penal Code § 148, cau­sing loss of lives, serious inju­ries and wide­spread destruc­tion of pro­perty, in order to seriously inter­fere a func­tion of fun­da­men­tal impor­tance: the exe­cutive authority.

Penal Code § 147a, first para­graph, let­ter b

for deli­be­rately cau­sing serious fear in a popu­la­tion by a cri­mi­nal act descri­bed in §§ 148 and 233, second para­graph, see § 232.

Basis

On Fri­day 22 July 2011 in the after­noon at Utøya, he created serious fear in the popu­la­tion as he kil­led and inju­red a large num­ber of people by shoo­ting around on a sum­mer camp orga­nized by the poli­ti­cal youth orga­niza­tion AUF.

1.3 Cir­cums­tan­ces regar­ding the observation

The experts have had con­ver­sa­tions with Brei­vik in Ila pri­son and deten­tion insti­tu­tion. The experts have been through long nego­tia­tions and arran­ge­ments with Ila prior to the first inter­views, since security measu­res have been at the hig­hest natio­nal level. Ila plan­ned to con­duct the inter­view through a glass wall with the aid of a microp­hone, but the experts did not agree to this con­dition for an adequate investigation.

The experts were then allowed to sit with two pri­son offi­cers and Brei­vik, with shack­les and the left arm chai­ned to his belt, but with face-to-face con­tact across three tab­les between them­sel­ves and Brei­vik, who was com­pletely trap­ped in a cor­ner of the room. The twelfth and thirte­enth inter­view took place in the visi­ting room at Dept. G, with Brei­vik sit­ting in a locked cubicle with glass walls, and with the experts alone in the visi­ting room and guards on the outside.

Initi­ally Brei­vik was infor­med that the experts’ role and func­tion are related to his cri­mi­nal case. He was explai­ned that the experts are not investi­ga­ting the facts of the case, but only infor­ma­tion of impor­tance for the assess­ment of his men­tal con­dition prior to and during the cri­mi­nal acts, as well as during the talks with the experts. He was also explai­ned that the experts have no duty of secrecy, but rat­her a duty to inform the dele­ga­ting aut­hority. Brei­vik rece­i­ved the infor­ma­tion and expressed that he under­stood and accep­ted this. He was atten­tive and wan­ted to cooperate.

The experts are both uncon­nected and unre­lated to Brei­vik, and thus con­si­der them­sel­ves com­pe­tent. They have both done simi­lar work for the court previously.

In the following, direct quo­tes from inter­views and excerpts from docu­ments are set in ita­lics. If text is omit­ted from quo­tes, this will be mar­ked by (…).

2. Back­ground documentation

2.1 Assess­ment of police docu­ments to be reported in the for­en­sic psychiatric statement

There are plenty of police docu­ments in the case that the experts had to assess in order to get fami­liar with what could shed light on the experts’ man­date, and that are con­se­quently referred to in the state­ment. The experts them­sel­ves have con­ducted 13 inter­views with Brei­vik, with a total dura­tion of 36 hours. With their approach, the experts have the­re­fore been able to obtain com­pre­hen­sive and sub­stan­tial evi­dence in the case.

Brei­vik has coope­ra­ted very well, and the experts have obtai­ned first-hand infor­ma­tion, which has rende­red the min­utes of the police docu­ments less neces­sary. In addition, the experts have seen/heard through all the ques­tioning of Brei­vik, and they have seen a video of the recon­struc­tion of events at Utøya. Police docu­ments are the­re­fore only referred to to the extent that they pro­vide infor­ma­tion beyond the experts’ own investi­ga­tions, and are the­re­fore con­side­red to be of impor­tance to answe­ring the experts’ mandate.

The experts have the­re­fore made the following judgments about the excerpts of police documentation:

- Breivik’s state­ments to the police:

Breivik’s state­ments to the police occupy seve­ral hundred printed pages. The experts were also asked to go through DVD recor­dings of the same inter­ro­ga­tions, which the experts have deemed appro­priate as a neut­ral source of obser­va­tion. The experts’ review of the DVD recor­ded inter­ro­ga­tions is repro­du­ced in a short resume. The only expla­na­tions by Brei­vik that are espec­ially reported are the ones recor­ded at Utøya right after the cri­mi­nal acts.

The experts were asked by the police if they con­side­red it appro­priate with police pre­sence during the ques­tioning of Brei­vik. The experts found it neit­her cor­rect nor appro­priate, con­si­de­ring the Nor­we­gian tra­dition for use of experts, and there has been no such presence.

- Recon­struc­tion Utøya:

The experts have seen through the DVD recor­ding of the recon­struc­tion, and will brie­fly refer their impres­sions of this.

- Ques­tioning of victims:

The experts have noted that there has been no rela­tion or per­so­nal, ver­bal con­tact between Brei­vik and any of the vic­tims. The experts have the­re­fore, also for capacity rea­sons, deci­ded not to go into the indi­vi­dual ques­tioning of the vic­tims rela­ting to the cri­mi­nal acts at the Govern­ment Buil­ding. Regar­ding the vic­tims of the cri­mi­nal acts on Utøya, we have in col­la­bo­ra­tion with investi­ga­tors and the spec­ial police divi­sion Kripos cho­sen the testi­mo­nies that describe con­tacts with Brei­vik, and we com­ment on/refer to one of these.

- Wit­ness examinations:

The experts have reviewed all of the 402 pre­sent wit­ness exa­mi­na­tions that regard the cri­mi­nal acts by the Govern­ment buil­dings. As regards the cri­mi­nal acts on Utøya, the experts have with police assi­stance cho­sen the testi­mo­nies where rele­vant con­tact with Brei­vik is described.

The experts note that neit­her the testi­mo­nies related to the cri­mi­nal acts by the Govern­ment buil­dings nor the ones at Utøya con­tain spec­i­fic infor­ma­tion about Brei­vik beyond what will be referred summarily.

Testi­mo­nies from Breivik’s fri­ends and acquain­tan­ces from child­hood and adult­hood are referred to in par­ti­cu­lar. The experts report excerpts from inter­views with Breivik’s gene­ral practitio­ner and has also obtai­ned medi­cal records from the GP.

The experts have had a talk with Breivik’s mot­her. This talk is reported. The experts have also gone through all the ques­tioning of her, partly also on DVD, but only report the details rele­vant to the man­date that go beyond what emer­ged during the talk with the experts.

- Health infor­ma­tion, both atta­ched and obtai­ned: The experts will brie­fly refer from the infor­ma­tion regar­ding Breivik’s health.

- Breivik’s com­pen­dium, also cal­led Mani­festo 2083

In the following, the experts refer to this mate­rial using the term com­pen­dium, because this is the term Brei­vik con­sis­tently uses during the experts’ inter­views with him. The experts have noted that the mate­rial has been the sub­ject of great inte­rest in various media.

The experts have gai­ned an over­view of the com­pen­dium, and have noted during the inter­views that Brei­vik often refers to it him­self. Whe­ne­ver Brei­vik has referred to the com­pen­dium during the inter­views, the experts have asked him to ela­bo­rate on the sub­ject under discus­sion, and they have found this a success­ful stra­tegy in order to gain fun­da­men­tal insights into his thin­king. The experts do not see it as appro­priate to refer to large parts of the com­pen­dium, but will com­ment on it in light of own observations.

2.2 Pre­li­mi­nary observation

There has been no pre­li­mi­nary obser­va­tion of Brei­vik. Because of Breivik’s imme­diate appea­rance and the extreme gra­vity of the cri­mi­nal acts, a for­en­sic psychiatric obser­va­tion was deci­ded wit­hout any pre­li­mi­nary observation.

Due to this deci­sion, the experts do not have access to any qua­li­fied assess­ment of Brei­vik made in close tem­po­ral rela­tion to the cri­mi­nal acts.

2.3 State­ments of vic­tims, doc. 05

The cri­mi­nal acts are investi­ga­ted by two agen­cies. Oslo Police Depart­ment has ques­tio­ned the vic­tims of the attack on the Govern­ment buil­dings. Spec­ial police divi­sion Kripos has been respon­s­ible for the investi­ga­tion and inter­ro­ga­tion related to the cri­mi­nal acts at Utøya. The experts will com­ment on these groups of vic­tims separately.

2.3.1 Vic­tims related to the cri­mi­nal acts by the Govern­ment buil­dings. The experts were initi­ally sent 340 inter­views rela­ting to the govern­ment buil­dings. In the inter­views, no rela­tion­ship or con­tact between Brei­vik and any of the vic­tims is descri­bed. The testi­mo­nies do not con­tain any infor­ma­tion that may shed light on the experts’ man­date and the for­en­sic psychiatric assess­ment, and are the­re­fore not quoted here.

2.3.2 Vic­tims related to the cri­mi­nal acts on Utøya

The docu­ments con­cer­ning the cri­mi­nal acts on Utøya were later sent to the experts in PDF format.

The experts have seen the DVD of the police recon­struc­tion of events at Utøya. Through inter­views it emer­ges that Brei­vik has not had any qua­li­ta­tively sig­ni­fi­cant, per­so­nal con­tact with anyone at Utøya who has sub­se­quently been ques­tio­ned. He had a con­ver­sa­tion with those who rece­i­ved him on the island, but he imme­dia­tely kil­led them after his arri­val on the island. The ver­bal con­tact Brei­vik has had with others, may have been with people who were later kil­led and that he had cal­led forth (Doc. 08.10.01 page 8).

In coope­ra­tion with police investigators/Kripos, the experts have iden­ti­fied the inter­ro­ga­tions descri­bing direct con­tact with Brei­vik that might the­re­fore help to shed light on the experts’ man­date. The ques­tioning of a vic­tim who had con­tact with Brei­vik three times while he went shoo­ting on the island is quoted here.

2.3.2.1 Vic­tim XXXXX Doc. 05,02,04

The testi­mony con­tains descrip­tions of Breivik’s man­ner, and a sum­mary of it is the­re­fore quoted here. The vic­tim had three con­tacts with Brei­vik on the island and he was even­tually shot in the shoul­der. The vic­tim said that he and seve­ral others ran around try­ing to hide. Before that they had seen Brei­vik shoot seve­ral people, coldly and calmly.

Many were hit while they ran, and the vic­tim heard the bul­lets whistle around him. The vic­tim attemp­ted to start swim­ming, but could not, and got back on shore. Then sud­denly Brei­vik stood on the ground and shot at those who swam while yel­ling: I will kill you all, you’re going to die. The vic­tim then expe­ri­en­ced being aimed at, but Brei­vik sud­denly stop­ped taking aim and went away.

The vic­tim then lay down on the beach and a lot of people came, some of whom swam and some hid. Then Brei­vik came back, and lying on his sto­mach with a rain­coat over him, the vic­tim saw seve­ral people being shot and kil­led. He saw two per­sons he knew being shot. Sud­denly he saw a pair of shoes right in front of him, heard a bang and felt a blow to the shoul­der. Then he saw Brei­vik go up towards the woods and dis­appear. The vic­tim remai­ned lying down until the police arrived.

2.4 Breivik’s state­ments to the police

Breivik’s state­ments to the police, on print, DVD and CD, are over­all a very exten­sive mate­rial. In intro­duc­tory remarks to the state­ment, the experts have explai­ned that sum­ma­ries of inter­views on DVD and CD are reported. The printouts of the police inter­ro­ga­tions of Brei­vik are too exten­sive for the experts to find it appro­priate to report these in detail.

The first inter­ro­ga­tion of Brei­vik that was done right after the cri­mi­nal acts on Utøya is repro­du­ced in its enti­rety. This inter­ro­ga­tion, i.e. the seven-hour audio file that was recor­ded imme­dia­tely after the arrest, as well as next day’s incar­ce­ra­tion sum­mary, is con­side­red sig­ni­fi­cant as a source of infor­ma­tion for assess­ing Breivik’s men­tal state at the time of the cri­mi­nal acts.
Infor­ma­tion pro­vi­ded in sub­se­quent police inter­ro­ga­tions which is likely to shed light on the experts ‘man­date, are con­side­red to be covered by the detai­led reports from the experts’ own inter­views. Breivik’s story has not changed sub­stanti­ally since the first inter­ro­ga­tion was car­ried out, neit­her has it through a long series of police interrogations.

2.4.1 Expla­na­tion of 22 July 2011, doc 08,01

On Fri­day 22 July 2011, police serge­ant XXXXX, police super­int­endent XXXXX and police serge­ant XXXXX where dri­ving while patrol­ling in plain clot­hes. Police serge­ant XXXXX was lead­ing the patrol.

At about 19:20 hours we were assig­ned by detec­tive ins­pec­tor XXXXX with the task of tra­vel­ling to Utøya to start inter­ro­ga­ting a per­son who had been arrested on the sus­pi­cion of having shot one or more per­sons at the AUF sum­mer camp. The accu­sed had been arrested by a unit from the emer­gency squad, and had given infor­ma­tion that two other cells were active in Nor­way. Refer to report from police serge­ant XXXXX.

Our task was to cla­rify whether it was pos­sible to verify the infor­ma­tion that there were more cells that would act in Nor­way, and to get the most cri­ti­cal infor­ma­tion from the accu­sed in order to try to pre­vent the loss of more lives. The mis­sion was aut­ho­rized by the police commissioner’s staff. The accu­sed was not told about the tape recor­ding of the inter­ro­ga­tion. The report is pri­ma­rily writ­ten as a sum­mary, but with some quo­tes from the accu­sed writ­ten between quo­ta­tion marks. The report has not been sub­mit­ted to the accu­sed for peru­sal. We set up in a room at the first floor in the admi­ni­stra­tion buil­ding at Utøya. We took the accu­sed from the emer­gency squad at about 20:15 hours.

The accu­sed was somewhat excited and asked if he was taken away to be exe­cuted for what he had done. We dis­proved this imme­dia­tely and infor­med him that we wan­ted to talk with him. The accu­sed imme­dia­tely announ­ced that he had taken an E-stack and would dehy­drate wit­hin two hours unless he got some liquid. This was a sub­stance which he had made him­self and that would enhance per­for­mance. He had taken the sub­stance in order to achieve as much as pos­sible during the operation.

Police serge­ant XXXXX noti­fied the accu­sed that we came from the Oslo Police Dist­rict, orga­nized crime unit, spec­ial ope­ra­tions, and that this was a very early police inter­ro­ga­tion. The pur­pose of the inter­ro­ga­tion was to get infor­ma­tion from the accu­sed, because we had indi­ca­tions that there could be more going on. Next he was furt­her infor­med that he was char­ged in a case that dealt with mur­der, that as char­ged he did not have to explain him­self to the police, and that he could be assis­ted by defense coun­sel at any stage of the case. He was made aware that at the moment it was not prac­ti­cally pos­sible to be assis­ted by a coun­sel because we had too little time.

The accu­sed inter­rupts police serge­ant XXXXX and says he will tell in rough terms.

Police serge­ant XXXXX tells the accu­sed that we want to ask him ques­tions about what might be hap­pe­ning, and encourage the accu­sed to think about him­self, since bad things hap­pe­ned today and the accu­sed shall have a life after this. The accu­sed answers that he has sacri­ficed him­self and has no life after this. His life is over now, and it was a sacri­fice he was wil­ling to do. He may well suf­fer and be tor­tu­red for the rest of his life, “Do not even think that I will get out again. My life ended when I ordai­ned myself to the Knights Temp­lar of Europe.” The accu­sed is sur­prised that he is being inter­ro­gated by per­son­nel from Orga­nized Crime and not the secret police ser­vice PST. He is told that we are gat­he­ring infor­ma­tion in cri­mi­nal cases. The accu­sed asks what we want to talk to him about. Police serge­ant XXXXX asks what he wants to accom­plish here today, and if there is somet­hing more to happen.

The accu­sed says that “we want to take power in Europe wit­hin 60 years. I am the com­man­der of Knights Temp­lar Nor­way. Knights Temp­lar of Europe was estab­lis­hed in 2002 in Lon­don, with dele­ga­tes from 12 countries. We are crusa­ders and natio­na­lists.” The accu­sed emp­ha­sizes that they are not Nazis and that they sup­port Israel. They are not racists, but want Islam and poli­ti­cal Islam out of Europe. They are wor­king to take over power in all Western Euro­pean countries over the next 60 years. This they do by con­ser­va­tive revolution.

The accu­sed has descri­bed the process over 1800 pages and he can not explain this in a few min­utes. The accu­sed is asked by police super­int­endent XXXXX if there is any­thing more on the island. The accu­sed says there is not­hing more. He also denies that there are any explo­si­ves on the island. He says that “this is a clo­sed chap­ter.” When asked if the car on the other side is rigged, he denies this. Next he says he belie­ves that his shot­gun is in the car.

Police super­int­endent XXXXX then asks if there is anyone apart from him, or if any­thing will bang on the island.

The accu­sed says that only he is on the island, but on follow-up ques­tions from police super­int­endent XXXXX, he con­firms that there is more elsewhere. He will not answer where there is somet­hing more. He says he is wil­ling to go into nego­tia­tions with us, but he wants orderly con­ditions and somet­hing in return for the information.

The accu­sed claims that he knows what he wants for the infor­ma­tion and says that he can fur­nish infor­ma­tion on the two other cells in Nor­way if he gets what he wants. He claims that the police could save 300 human lives, but that he will have somet­hing in return. He basi­cally wants to nego­tiate with the PST. The accu­sed is asked to give us a time frame as a con­fir­ma­tion that he knows somet­hing more. This he does not want. The accu­sed asserts that “today I am the grea­test mons­ter since Quis­ling, and it’s okay somehow.” Police serge­ant XXXXX says that he has talked with many people who have done bad things before, but the point is that many innocent lives have been lost today.

The accu­sed says that ‘I would not exactly call them ideo­lo­gical acti­vists, these are extreme Marx­ists. Do you know who was here the day before yester­day ?’ It was Marthe Michelet. These are not innocent people. This is the Labor Party’s, the wor­kers’ youth orga­niza­tion. They have been in power in Nor­way. They have arran­ged the Isla­miza­tion of Nor­way.” Police serge­ant XXXXX asks if the loss of more lives is neces­sary. The accu­sed replies: “Of course. This is just the begin­ning. The civil war has star­ted between Com­mu­nists and natio­na­lists. If you are not an inter­na­tio­na­list, then you’re a natio­na­list. You can not be both. I am a natio­na­list and an anti-Islamist. I do not want Islam in Europe, and my fel­low par­ti­sans agree with me. We believe that Europe and Nor­way are worth figh­ting for, and we will not let Oslo end up like Mar­seille, that got a Mus­lim majority in 2010. We will fight for Oslo. The accu­sed claims that the ope­ra­tion he was orde­red to do was com­pleted 100 per­cent success­fully and that was why he sur­rende­red. He goes on to say that what hap­pe­ned here today, and in Oslo ear­lier today, is not the ope­ra­tion, but the fireworks for somet­hing that will happen.

The accu­sed is asked if he has any pho­nes on him, but he denies it. He says it’s pos­sible that there are some in the car. He is asked about the pin code of the phone he had with him when he was arrested. The accu­sed explains that it is not his mobile. He did not find his own and do not know where it is.

When asked where he lives, the accu­sed first answers XXXXX before cor­rec­ting it to Åsta east. He claims that he has been living there the last couple of years. This should be close to Rena. The accu­sed does not want to tell how much time has passed since he was in XXXXX to see his mot­her. The accu­sed has not rigged any places with explo­si­ves, but he had con­side­red doing so. He deci­ded not to because he con­si­ders the police as his brot­hers and did not want to hurt anyone from the police. When he saw the Delta he could have shot at them and taken out some of them.

When asked whether there are any explo­si­ves in any of the places, he con­firms it. He will not tell what kind of explo­si­ves are there, since he thinks it could be a bar­gai­ning chip.

The accu­sed wants access to a PC with Word to pre­pare a docu­ment con­tai­ning requests for “us”.

The accu­sed is asked if he has not created a docu­ment in advance. He answers evasively and asks for a PC or some paper to create a document.

Police serge­ant XXXXX inter­rupts and asks if he has the SIM card of the phone he had with him. The accu­sed does not know where it is, since it is not his mobile. He tried to call the police seve­ral times, but does not know whether there was a SIM card in the phone. He used the phone to call the police three times on 112. The accu­sed claims he tried to sur­ren­der. He wan­ted them to trans­fer him to Delta’s ope­ra­tions mana­ger, but they could not fix it.

The accu­sed is asked more ques­tions about the house at Åsta, but wants to pro­vide this infor­ma­tion as part of a pack­age. He is told that the police will go in there and look through it in any case. After the sear­ching process, there will be no nego­tia­tion basis.

The accu­sed says repeatedly that it will be dan­gerous for the police to go in there. In what seems like a slip of the tongue he men­tions the word deto­na­tor in con­nec­tion with the red barn on the site.

After a while, the accu­sed offers the police 98 per­cent of the less essen­tial infor­ma­tion that he has, if the police meet some of his requests.

He wants to access a PC with Word in pri­son. The accu­sed strugg­les with defi­ning more demands. He says that he had a USB chip in his com­bat vest that has not been found. It was sup­po­sed to lie behind the flag, but was not there. He then says he thinks that he has the list on his PC at home in Åsta. It ought to be a yel­low USB chip.

The accu­sed asserts seve­ral times that he needs more orderly con­ditions in order to be able to express him­self. After a while he says that he will define three lists of requests. A simple one that will be easy to satisfy. There will also be a second list of requests that might go through and that will be much more attrac­tive to the police. The third list of requests will be of a for­ma­lity cul­ture that police will never accept.

The accu­sed is encoura­ged to start with the easy list of requests, or tell where the USB chip is located. The accu­sed belie­ves that the yel­low USB chip is at Åsta east, but he is not sure.

He claims that his cell has 15000 sym­pat­hizers in Nor­way, and that many of them are wit­hin the police. He is aware that no one will defend the bes­tial actions he has com­pleted. For them it is about the country’s sur­vi­val, the people’s sur­vi­val against Islam, which is much more bru­tal than his orga­niza­tion will be.

The accu­sed says “we are mar­tyrs, we take upon us, we can be mons­ters. It’s okay for us. But we make the job much easier for other con­ser­va­tive revolutionaries.”

Asked how many sup­por­ters he thinks he has left after this day, he avoids answering.

When asked what kind of people he has kil­led on the island today, whether these are young­s­ters, he replies that it is Marx­ist youth.

When asked if those who are left behind today have been given a chance to grow up and dis­sociate them­sel­ves from Marx­ism, he replies that he has dre­a­ded this day for two years. He thought it was com­pletely awful. For “you” to open your eyes to the threat Islam is for Europe, they need a shock. The accu­sed claims that those who were on the island were extreme Marx­ist youth who are more extreme than the Labour Party. Those who were on the island were radi­cal Marxists.

Police serge­ant XXXXX inter­rupts and tells the accu­sed that the police are out­side XXXXX. He asks if his mot­her is at home and what is writ­ten on the door.

The accu­sed con­firms that she is at home and that XXXXX is writ­ten on the bell. She reportedly lives in XXXXX. He sta­tes that her telep­hone num­ber is XXXXX. He denies that he has explo­si­ves there, only a PC in the fart room. That is the first room. There should be somet­hing of inte­rest in the attic or the basement.

The accu­sed says that he wants us to know that he has dre­a­ded this day for two years. It has been the worst day of his life. Unfor­tu­nately, it was neces­sary. Hope­fully, Labour will learn from this and stop mass impor­ta­tion of Mus­lims. Those who are here must be 100 per­cent assimilated.

After having talked a little about the family name, he says that he is pre­pared to be por­trayed as a mons­ter, he hopes that society can learn, that Europe can learn. This will be the begin­ning of a very bloody civil war. When asked if more people will die today, he does not want to com­ment on it.

The accu­sed again wants to obtain some more orderly con­ditions. He wants access to a PC with Word, so that he can draw up his list of requests. I point out to him that I think it is strange that he did not have his demands ready in advance. The accu­sed claims he has severe pain and is unable to focus. He belie­ves a bet­ter loca­tion can remedy this.

He is explai­ned that we are not able to move right now.

The accu­sed claims he can pro­vide essen­tial infor­ma­tion that may save 300 lives if we move to anot­her loca­tion. The accu­sed repeats that we con­si­der him as a mons­ter. He is explai­ned that we con­si­der him a human being. He also belie­ves that his family is going to be exe­cuted. This is rejected and he is explai­ned that we are wil­ling to keep watch over his family if nee­ded. He is explai­ned that for us a life is a life. He is treated in exactly the same way as eve­ryone else. The accu­sed tells that the sub­ope­ra­tion he was part of today is more impor­tant than him­self, and more impor­tant than 30 innocent lives, and then he’s not tal­king about the extreme Marx­ists who died today. He claims to have simu­lated tor­ture for a long time to pre­pare himself.

When asked how he knows that the ones who died today were extreme Marx­ists, he replies that the Labour Youth are much more extreme than the Labour Party, which is rela­tively mode­rate. He is then asked what he knows about what hap­pe­ned in Oslo. The accu­sed responds that it is part of the nego­tia­tion basis.

He is infor­med that not only Marx­ists have been har­med. The accu­sed claims he is aware that it could back­fire against them. He belie­ves the mons­ters are use­ful idiots for the more mode­rate for­ces. He may well be a mons­ter and give his life for the coun­try to head in the right direc­tion and the Isla­miza­tion of Europe to halt.

The accu­sed is told that we do not con­si­der him a mons­ter, and that he is the only one to use this term. The timing of the action he claims is in line with the plan­ning basis. The accu­sed says that he has car­ried out an ideo­lo­gical attack for poli­ti­cal rea­sons. He sees him­self as a pawn in the ideo­lo­gical struggle that is going on in Europe. When asked if simi­lar things will hap­pen in Europe, he replies: “gua­ranteed.” He will not say whether somet­hing simi­lar has hap­pe­ned today. When asked he says that he had with him a Benelli Super Nova, a Ruger Mini 14 cal 5.56 and a Glock 34. The accu­sed beco­mes aware that he has a small tear in a fin­ger. He thinks that the shot­gun is left behind in the car. He has slug ammu­nition for the shot­gun. The shot­gun was left behind in the car because all the equip­ment was too heavy to carry. The accu­sed brought with him six cartridge clips for the Glock. Four of the clips were 30 shot magazi­nes. For the Ruger he had 10 pie­ces of 30 shot magazines.

The accu­sed says that he has plan­ned the ope­ra­tion for two years, but that much went wrong. There has been very much plan­ning and hard work. The accu­sed explains that if the Labor Party chan­ges its policy, this will unfold in a com­pletely dif­fe­rent man­ner. If the mass immi­gra­tion of 50,000 Mus­lims per year is stop­ped, then the accused’s orga­niza­tion will not per­form any more ope­ra­tions in Nor­way. Then they will focus on other countries instead of Nor­way. The accu­sed claims that Den­mark and Italy have rece­i­ved immu­nity from attack because they have a rest­ric­tive policy.

The accu­sed agrees to for­mu­late his most modest list of demands. He wants full access to let­ters in pri­son at the ear­liest pos­sible stage. The accu­sed is explai­ned that he will get this any­way as soon as the basis for the ban on cor­re­spon­dence and visits is gone. He asks how long a ban on cor­re­spon­dence usu­ally lasts, and is told that it depends on the investi­ga­tion and that is is dif­fi­cult to say in a mur­der case. The accu­sed reacts on the word mur­der, and claims that he has made poli­ti­cal exe­cutions. He says that he has exe­cuted the people he kil­led, but denies having mur­de­ring them.

The accu­sed then claims that the Knights Temp­lar of Europe have given him per­mis­sion to exe­cute cate­gory A, B and C trai­tors. The accu­sed first says I think, but cor­rects it to we think, that the Knights Temp­lar of Nor­way is the top mili­tary and poli­ti­cal aut­hority in Nor­way. This gives them the right to expro­priate in order to access funds, as well as rights to defend their coun­try. They are the chief law enfor­ce­ment aut­hority in Nor­way. He is aware that they are not rec­og­nized by society. The orga­niza­tion is part of a lar­ger orga­niza­tion in Europe. The aim is to deport Mus­lims out of Europe. When asked if any­thing else has come from his orga­niza­tion today that has reached the mass media, he asks “the other two loca­tions? He does not follow this up.

The accu­sed returns to his claim no. 1, to have the shor­test pos­sible ban on cor­re­spon­dence. He says cor­re­spon­dence is more impor­tant than the pos­si­bi­lity of having visits. Demand no. 2: He wants access to a PC with Word for at least 8 hours a day. It may be a stan­da­lone PC wit­hout inter­net access, but with a prin­ter. He claims he is an intel­lec­tual and not a war­rior. He is best at for­mu­la­ting poli­ti­cal texts. His voca­tion is to fight with the pen, but some­ti­mes you have to fight with the sword. The accu­sed says his demand no. 3 is access to Wiki­pe­dia. Demand no. 4 is to serve time in pri­son with the low­est pos­sible num­ber of Mus­lims. Demand no. 5 is that he shall not be served halal food.

If his demands are met, he will share 98 per­cent of the infor­ma­tion he has. It does not include loca­li­sa­tions and names of cell mem­bers. The accu­sed is infor­med that we will send his demands to those who can make a deci­sion and that the demands most likely will work out.

The accu­sed is made aware that we need to know whether some­one is going to be kil­led now or in the near future for him to get an agreement.

The accu­sed also puts for­ward his second list of demands. It will pro­vide the police with sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion. The accu­sed is wil­ling to iden­tify two other cell mem­bers in Nor­way who are plan­ning ter­ro­rist acts against Marx­ist par­ties or par­ties that sup­port mul­ti­cul­tura­lism. He would pro­vide names and loca­liza­tions of cell mem­bers. The demands to be met for this was that head of the police secret ser­vice PST, Janne Kris­ti­an­sen, was to sug­gest to the Parliament’s jus­tice com­mittee that the death penalty by han­ging is intro­du­ced in Nor­way, and that water­board­ing is intro­du­ced as tor­ture. Alter­na­tively, rest­ric­tions on Mus­lim immi­gra­tion and isla­miza­tion of Nor­way in gene­ral must be introduced.

Police serge­ant XXXXX inter­rup­ted and asked the accu­sed knew where he had found the phone, he brought with him. He thinks he found it in the buil­ding on the island.

The accu­sed did not want to tell where he spent last night.

Again, the accu­sed tells about a mani­festo of 2000 pages that he has left on a PC and one or more memory sticks. He has also created a video that would be on a memory stick. This allegedly was dis­tri­buted ear­lier today to 7,000 mili­tant Euro­pean natio­na­lists. He belie­ves it did not reach them all.

The film is not on Yout­ube. The film descri­bes the mani­festo more than it descri­bes the action. The accu­sed claims that he has wor­ked ideo­lo­gically all his life, but he has a pro­blem with the media that do not report cul­turally con­ser­va­tive points of view. When they refuse to report it, one has to get the mes­sage across in other ways. This is why he joined the Knights Temp­lar of Europe in 2002.

He has earned seve­ral mil­lion kro­ner on outsourcing of electro­nic ser­vices. He pre­viously emp­loyed 12 pro­gram­mers in Rus­sia and Indo­ne­sia. The accu­sed sold his ser­vices to Europe and the Uni­ted Sta­tes and made good money.

The accu­sed sud­denly says that it is tra­gic, and that his heart is cry­ing for what hap­pe­ned today. He thinks it is sad that the Labour Party is for­cing the cul­tural con­ser­va­ti­ves to take such bar­ba­ric action. The accu­sed is con­fronted with the fact that he is the com­man­der and has a respon­s­i­bi­lity. To this he replies that he has a respon­s­i­bi­lity to save Nor­way and his people. He takes full respon­s­i­bi­lity for eve­rything. He is proud of the operation.

“If you only knew how much hard work it was. But I’m not proud of what I was for­ced to do. It was com­pletely awful. I’ve been dre­ad­ing this day for two years. I hope the govern­ment comes to its sen­ses, but it doesn’t”.

When asked how much know­ledge of weapons he has, the accu­sed says that it is sen­si­tive infor­ma­tion. Neit­her does he want to say why he has cho­sen exactly a Ruger Mini 14 as a weapon. He says that he is a mem­ber of Oslo Hun­ting and Fish­ing, but does not fully under­stand what the under­sig­ned means by com­bat shoo­ter and com­bat shoo­ting as a sport. When explai­ned what the note taker means, he says he has not done any com­bat shoo­ting as a sport. He is fami­liar with field shoo­ting using a Glock.

The accu­sed expres­ses great admi­ra­tion for Israel’s IDF for­ces and Israeli mate­riel. He used an Israeli pro­tec­tive vest as pro­tec­tion against bul­lets and also had additio­nal pro­tec­tion in the form of panels that would stop armour pier­cing ammu­nition. He nee­ded the pro­tec­tion in case the mis­sion was not com­pleted before the police arrived. Then he would have fought the police. The accu­sed did not want to tell where he had bought the mate­riel. The accu­sed was told that the con­ditions he had on the second list were unrea­li­s­tic and that they would not be sub­mit­ted for review before we had an answer to the first list. The accu­sed said that he had sent a docu­ment to thou­sands of mili­tant natio­na­lists of various types in Europe. He did not say any­thing about what kind of docu­ment it was.

The accu­sed was again urged to think about his future. He replied that he had no future, but that he could help chan­ging Nor­way ideo­lo­gically. He belie­ved that he had star­ted a low-intensity civil war that was to last for 60 years. What had hap­pe­ned today was approa­ching a phase 2 civil war. The low-intensity civil war that he had alre­ady descri­bed, had las­ted until now with ideo­lo­gical struggle and cen­sor­ship of cul­tural con­ser­va­ti­ves. He belie­ved that France would be won by his brot­hers in 15 years. He envi­sa­ged that it would be easy to get him out of jail once they had estab­lis­hed a base.

He con­firms that the orga­niza­tion Knights Temp­lar is descri­bed on the Inter­net. He also refers to a Latin name of the orga­niza­tion, Pop­pers com­me­ri­co­nes christi tem­piqe solominici.

The orga­niza­tion is allegedly built on a single-cell basis with a high degree of iso­la­tion between the cells. The accu­sed has been ordai­ned a Knight of the orga­niza­tion and is com­man­der in Nor­way. That means he has at least two other cells below him. He is also the judge of the orga­niza­tion. The Nor­we­gian com­man­ders are sover­eign in Nor­way and the inter­na­tio­nal orga­niza­tion has no aut­hority to micro-manage the natio­nal commander.

The com­pa­nies which the accu­sed has had were instru­ments to finance the ope­ra­tion. The mil­lions he earned have finan­ced the ope­ra­tion. He does not say how much money he has spent, but he has put a lot of work into it and he descri­bes it as a grue­ling toil.

When asked whether he has wor­ked with this aim since 2002, the accu­sed says that he became a mem­ber when he was 21, but that he has been a sle­eper cell. He has never given him­self out to have extreme thoughts before now. He belie­ves this is the rea­son why the police secret ser­vice PST has not dis­covered him. He sug­gests that the orga­niza­tion recruits people who are suit­able, but who do not behave in such a way that they have alre­ady been registe­red by the police.

It would allegedly not be a pro­blem for the orga­niza­tion that the com­man­der had been taken. Single cells would be able to con­ti­nue ope­ra­ting on their own.

The accu­sed claims that there are people wit­hin the police and the PST who secretly sym­pat­hize with the organization.

He emp­ha­sizes that if he had not been cen­so­red by the media all his life, he would not have had to do what he did. He belie­ves the media have the main respon­s­i­bi­lity for what has hap­pe­ned because they did not pub­lish his opinions.

Clear tar­gets are allegedly defined that they want to hit. These will be a cate­gory A and B poli­ti­ci­ans and media. The down­side of what hap­pe­ned today was that cate­gory C trai­tors were hit.

There are 12 cate­gory A trai­tors in Nor­way. Most of them are in the govern­ment. Jonas Gahr Støre is on top of the list. Stol­ten­berg comes furt­her down the list. There are other ideo­lo­gues of the Labor Party that are more dan­gerous than Stol­ten­berg. Kol­berg and Ronny John­sen are named. The head of the Labour Orga­niza­tion LO is also dan­gerous and high on the list.

All cate­gory A, B and C trai­tors are multiculturalists.

Cate­gory B con­si­sts of 4500 persons.

Cate­gory C con­si­sts of 85,000 indi­vi­duals in Norway.

When asked who deci­ded what cate­gory each one belongs to, he replies that it is the accu­sed him­self who has for­mu­lated eve­rything in his book.

He then adds: “We have a man­date to exe­cute cate­gory A and B trai­tors. We do not really have the man­date to exe­cute cate­gory C trai­tors. Most of those who were in the camp today are defined as cate­gory C trai­tors. It was because the sub­ope­ra­tion that I car­ried out today was actually plan B. I had anot­her ope­ra­tion which was much big­ger, but it went down the drain.”

The accu­sed will not tell what was Plan A.

The accu­sed is keen on get­ting through with his second list of demands. He is of the opi­nion that by meeting his demands for the intro­duc­tion of capi­tal punish­ment and water­board­ing, 300 human lives might be saved. The other two cells will kill 300 people if they are not stop­ped. He wants to push society to vio­late its prin­cip­les. That would be an ideo­lo­gical victory.

He is infor­med that the demand is unrealistic.

The accu­sed had hoped to be tor­tu­red in order to show that the regime was wil­ling to vio­late its prin­cip­les. It would have given him an ideo­lo­gical gain.

The accu­sed says that he has been nomi­nated to the City Coun­cil of Oslo repre­sen­ting the Pro­gress Party. It was while he still thought he could change Europe democratically.

Police serge­ant XXXXX inter­rupts and asks whether he can tell about the car that is out­side the buil­ding we are in and that is loa­ded with ammunition.

The accu­sed says that some­one else owns the car. Inside his own car there is a box. The accu­sed put on an act and asked some­one to drive up the boxes for him. He played his role until he was in an opti­mal position to act. He asked if they could help him to carry up the box. He has not dri­ven the car. The accu­sed had inten­ded to set fire to all the buil­dings. He had brought with him eight liters of die­sel, but said he had lost his ligh­ter. In the vest he was wea­ring, he had the keys to two cars he had rented from AVIS.

The accu­sed claims that he cal­led the police three times to con­tact the Delta. In total, he had tried to call ten times. Six times he did not come through. Other times he spoke with com­pletely incom­pe­tent per­sons. He asked to be cal­led back twice when they had got hold of the ope­ra­ting head of the Delta or a respon­s­ible per­son, but never heard any­thing back. The accu­sed used the phone wit­hout a SIM card to make these calls.

If the ope­ra­tion had not been 100 per­cent success­ful, he would have fought the Delta until he died. Since the ope­ra­tion was success­ful, he could con­ti­nue figh­ting with the pen from jail. In the accused’s opi­nion, the ope­ra­tion is still ongo­ing, but now with the pen.

He thinks that today has been the worst day of his life. It has been abso­lutely surreal.

The accu­sed is infor­med that he will be inter­ro­gated later about the details of what he has done.

The accu­sed denies that it is he who deci­des whether the ope­ra­tion has been success­ful. He belie­ves his­tory will judge, and how the media will por­tray him. He dis­tin­guis­hes between tech­ni­cal success in com­bat and media success. Media will por­tray him as a mons­ter, but with his sacri­fice he will be a use­ful idiot for other aspects of somet­hing unspec­i­fied. He takes on the role of mar­tyr to be a mons­ter. Com­bat tech­ni­cally, he thinks that the ope­ra­tion was a success.

When asked if it was a goal to be por­trayed as a mons­ter, he says not neces­sa­rily. The goal was not to be as bru­tal as he was.

The accu­sed says: “When I jud­ged people I tried not to take the very young. Because I took those who were older. The age range varied from 30 to 15, right? We have moral accep­tan­ces, right? Even though it may not have been so cle­arly appa­rent today.”

The accu­sed claims that they do not want to hit civi­lian tar­gets. They want to hit extreme Marx­ists who wish to Isla­mize the coun­try or who sup­port mul­ti­cul­tura­lism. They would like that less than 50 per­cent of those hit will be acci­den­tal civi­lian tar­gets. They aim to go after con­cen­tra­tions of cate­gory A, B or C trai­tors. Pri­ma­rily A, but the pro­blem is that they are well pro­tected by the police. If the tar­get is too dif­fi­cult, is it up to the cell com­man­der to con­si­der whether to pick a tar­get furt­her down the cate­gory list.

For two years he has thought about what is acceptable.

When asked if he’s going to say this in court, he says of course, eve­rything is planned.

He con­firms that he has weig­hed the pros and cons of exe­cuting people. He is of the opi­nion that he has not com­mit­ted mur­der. The accu­sed belie­ves that he is par­ti­ci­pa­ting in a poli­ti­cal war, a civil war.

The accu­sed says he has no know­ledge of the Hade­land kil­lings, XXXXX and the neo-Nazi circles.

Police serge­ant XXXXX inter­rupts, shows a bunch of keys and asks if they are the keys to the car on the side facing the main­land. The accu­sed con­firms this. The accu­sed also con­firms that one of the other keys belongs to a Pas­sat at his dis­po­sal that was blown up in the air. The accu­sed asks how long it will take to get an answer to his first list of demands. If he does not get access to a PC with Word, he will self-terminate. If he does not have the opport­u­nity to con­tri­bute to the fight for the rest of his life, all will be meaningless.

There is a break where the recor­ding is stopped.

He is asked whose pro­perty he is renting at Åsta. He responds that he rents from XXXXX.

[…]

He explains that this is the worst day of his life and that he has dre­a­ded this for 2 years. He has been cen­so­red for years. He men­tions Dag­bla­det and Aften­pos­ten as those who among other things have cen­so­red him.

He descri­bes the action as a sub­ope­ra­tion and says this is not the main action. He explains that he is not the only Knight Temp­lar in Nor­way and adds that there are 2 cells con­nected to him. The accu­sed will denounce these two cells and ensure that two ope­ra­tions will not be car­ried out if the death penalty and water­board­ing is intro­du­ced in Norway.

He asks how many he thinks he has kil­led today. The accu­sed says he has exe­cuted 40-50 per­sons, not mur­de­red them. The goal was to kill tomorrow’s Labor lea­ders. He then says that his strength is that he has no con­tact with the extreme right cir­c­les in Nor­way. In that case he would have drawn police attention.

He explains the ori­gin of the Knight Temp­lars, which star­ted with a meeting in Lon­don in 2002. This meeting came about because NATO had bom­bed in Ser­bia, this was approved by Wol­le­bæk and Bon­de­vik. Knight Temp­lars were created because of this.

The accu­sed was asked who defi­nes the met­ho­do­logy: the cell or the organization?

He then says that each cell com­man­der deter­mi­nes the met­hod, with the recom­men­da­tion of taking as few civi­lian lives as pos­sible, and pre­fe­rably not police. The tar­gets are only Marx­ists and the media. He goes on to say that he has writ­ten a book. Some­one else wrote anot­her book. He repeats that the tar­gets were only Marx­ists and trai­tors. He said that action on Utøya was not an opti­mal operation.

He is asked about who are the cate­gory A tar­gets. Then he says that they are the 12 Labor lea­ders and he puts Jonas Gahr Støre on top because Støre is more dan­gerous than Stol­ten­berg. He descri­bes Støre as the most dan­gerous man in Norway.

With regard to the ope­ra­tion Utøya, he says that he would have kil­led 3 men from Delta if he had fai­led to com­p­lete the mis­sion. He would not have been able to take out six men from Delta, but he would have mana­ged three because he had bet­ter pro­tec­tive gear than them.

The accu­sed was asked how he set off the explo­sive charge today. He then descri­bes using “DDMP” and that he orde­red 5 tons of ammo­nium nit­rate. It was hard work to pro­duce so much. To set off the charge, he used /0} XXXXX.

[…]

He was asked what he used as wads to se off the ammo­nium nit­rate. He descri­bes XXXXX. He goes on to describe that he used a XXXXX.

There is a break during which the recor­ding is stopped.

The accu­sed says he drove the car right in front of the object. He was car­ry­ing a bolt cut­ter. The accu­sed was amazed how close he was allowed to drive.

The accu­sed had never thought he would sur­vive the operation.

He says it would be easy to kill Stol­ten­berg, alt­hough Støre would be a bet­ter tar­get. The accu­sed esti­ma­tes that kil­ling Stol­ten­berg would require about one month’s pre­pa­ra­tion, inclu­ding surveil­lance. The value of kil­ling only one per­son would be too small. He also says that for some­one with his intel­lect and intel­li­gence, it would be a waste of resources to spend time plan­ning the mur­der of just one person.

The accu­sed had initi­ally plan­ned to use a mini-motorcycle to drive up to car B. He adds that maybe there are other cars he has not told about. Any­way he will not tell whether these vehic­les are loa­ded or not.

In this con­nec­tion, the accu­sed tells that his doc­trine says a loss of up to 50% of what he descri­bes as civi­li­ans is accep­table. The aim is not to kill as many as pos­sible any­way, but to send out a strong sig­nal. The accu­sed thinks that he has succe­e­ded in doing so.

He claims that if the Labour Party chan­ges its immi­gra­tion policy, he can gua­rantee that there will be no more attacks on Nor­we­gian soil. He tones this down to say that he can almost gua­rantee. After a short while, he says that maybe he can gua­rantee that there will not be anot­her attack in Norway.

He belie­ves that wit­hin 10 years Oslo will be a Mus­lim city, and that those respon­s­ible for what the accu­sed refers to as mass immi­gra­tion of Mus­lims need a clear message.

He expres­ses that he is not very happy with what he was for­ced to do, but that choo­s­ing Utøya was an inge­nious move, since it was like stab­bing the Labor Party in its heart. The accu­sed thinks that of course is tra­gic that some­one has to die, but ulti­mately the tota­lity is essential.

He says that he once thought he could win in a democra­tic man­ner, but the day he lost faith in this, he con­side­red vio­lence as the only option.

The accu­sed is asked about the foam rub­ber con­tai­ners in the car on the side facing the main­land. He does not want to say any­thing about it, but admits that it is natu­ral to think of pack­aging of deto­na­tors. The pack­aging shall pre­vent that they go off during trans­port. The accu­sed is infor­med that his demands have been accep­ted by the staff at the Oslo Police Dist­rict. Nevert­he­less, he does not want to pro­vide the infor­ma­tion he pro­mi­sed in exchange. He wants to get a writ­ten approval sig­ned by a Dist­rict Attorney.

He is infor­med that he should keep his word and not play for time. Min­utes are no lon­ger taken as the mis­sion goes into a trans­port phase.

2.4.2 Incar­ce­ra­tion Sum­mary 23 July 11

This sum­mary is from the inter­ro­ga­tion the same day.

The accu­sed was inter­ro­gated by police serge­ant XXXXX. The min­ute taker and police serge­ant XXXXX followed the inter­ro­ga­tion in its enti­rety via a one-way mir­ror and audio trans­mis­sion to the adjacent room.

Words and phra­ses writ­ten in “quo­ta­tion marks” are the detainee’s own words. Some sequen­ces are recor­ded in their enti­rety. These also appear in “quo­tes” and they have been writ­ten down after hea­ring the recor­ding of the interrogation.

Initi­ally, the indict­ment was read in its enti­rety before the accu­sed. When asked how he felt about the accu­sa­tion, he said he thought it was ina­dequate. The accu­sed said he thought it was strange that it con­tai­ned not­hing about his pro­duc­tion of bio­lo­gical weapons and his intent to use them.

The accu­sed was infor­med that as of today seven people were registe­red as dead after after the bomb explo­sion by the govern­ment buil­dings and more than 80 on Utøya.

When asked the accu­sed answe­red that he under­stood his rights. The accu­sed felt somewhat weak, since he had only slept two hours the night before Satur­day and since he had taken a num­ber of performance-enhancing drugs. The lat­ter he had done to carry out yesterday’s actions, which he descri­bed as a mili­tary ope­ra­tion, in the best pos­sible way. The accu­sed wan­ted to testify.

The accu­sed was wil­ling to explain him­self about “98% of eve­rything” if he got an approval of what he cal­led require­ment list no. 2. The accu­sed was also wil­ling to give an expla­na­tion wit­hout reser­va­tions if he got an approval of require­ment list no. 1. The accu­sed con­side­red it unlikely that he would get approval of require­ment list no. 1.

Require­ment list no. 1:

“We do not rec­og­nize the cur­rent regi­mes in Western Europe. They con­si­der all the orga­niza­tions wor­king for the decon­struc­tion of Euro­pean values and cul­ture as ter­ro­rist orga­niza­tions. We con­si­der ours­el­ves the top mili­tary and poli­ti­cal aut­hority in Europe. We demand that they rec­og­nize us as such. We are wil­ling to give all cate­gory A and B trai­tors offi­cial par­don if they dis­solve Par­lia­ment and trans­fer aut­hority to a con­ser­va­tive Guar­dian Coun­cil, chai­red by myself or other natio­na­list leaders. ”

Require­ment list no. 2:

- PC on the cell with word proces­sing pro­gram Word and access to prin­ter. This com­pu­ter did not have to be con­nected to the inter­net, but would have to include ‘Wiki­pe­dia’, pre­fe­rably the Eng­lish ver­sion.
- Use of “Knight Temp­lar” uni­form in court, inclu­ding the incar­ce­ra­tion ses­sion.
- An open trial with a free press.
- Pri­son con­ditions with the fewest pos­sible Mus­lim pri­so­ners.
- The accu­sed explai­ned he was aware that he would never “see free­dom” and that was OK for him. The accu­sed would spend his time in pri­son writing.

The accu­sed explai­ned that since 2001 he has been a mem­ber of an orga­niza­tion that calls itself Knight Temp­lar” and is a “crusa­der orga­niza­tion” whose goal is to deport poli­ti­cal Mus­lims from Europe, sup­port cul­tural Chris­tia­nity and take over power. The accu­sed con­si­ders the take­over of power as a long-term goal that must start in major countries like France and Eng­land. The accu­sed explai­ned that the take­over of power will emerge as “low-intensity” in the begin­ning, but that it will escalate and become “extremely bloody and tear the coun­try to pieces.”

The accu­sed descri­bes him­self as a free­dom fighter.

The accu­sed was con­fronted with the fact that he con­stantly referred to “we” when he explai­ned him­self. The accu­sed then explai­ned that as of today, there are about 80 “cells” around Europe, in Nor­way there are three such “potent cells”. The accu­sed con­si­ders him­self the lea­der in Nor­way and refers to him­self as cell no. 1. The accu­sed is wil­ling to name and share all infor­ma­tion about cells 2 and 3 if the first list of require­ments is accep­ted. The accu­sed added that in this case, many lives would be saved in Norway.

The accu­sed explai­ned that the cells were impos­sible to infil­t­rate, since they wor­ked alone, sepa­rately. He added that much of the cre­dit for his success was due to that they had wor­ked this way, thus mana­ging to avoid the intel­li­gence and PST radar.

Regar­ding the plan­ning of Friday’s actions, the accu­sed gave a long and detai­led state­ment on this. Brie­fly sum­ma­rized the accu­sed explai­ned that he initi­ally, from 2001, only wan­ted to con­tri­bute finan­cially. The goal was to raise 30 mil­lions before he was 30 years old. When he was 26 years old, he had saved 6 mil­lions and he rea­lized that he would not be able to reach the goal. He then deci­ded to use the money to write a com­pen­dium con­sis­ting of three books. The action on Fri­day was to be a part of the pub­li­ca­tion of this “mani­festo”. The way the book was pub­lis­hed was “a little devilish”.

The action on Fri­day 22 July 2011 was plan B. Plan A, which accor­ding to the accu­sed was much more exten­sive, could not be imple­men­ted because of the huge amount of time and effort it took to make enough explo­sions. Plan A was to place 4 vehic­les con­tai­ning explo­si­ves at the following loca­tions: Govern­ment buil­ding, Gune­rius, Labor Party and finally the royal castle. If the accu­sed sur­vi­ved, he would go to the Blitz anar­chist com­mu­nity, the news­pa­per Dags­avi­sen and the Socia­list Left Party SV, where he would kill as many as pos­sible. The accu­sed added that the royal family was not a defined goal. The orga­niza­tion has not­hing against the monarchy.

The accu­sed con­si­ders Plan B as 100% success­ful. He cor­rects this later during the inter­ro­ga­tion, when he explai­ned that unfore­seen “logi­s­ti­cal pro­blems” for­ced him to post­pone blowing up the govern­ment buil­ding, which was sup­po­sed to be bom­bed at 10:00 hours. “This delay was disastrous for the whole thing.” The accu­sed knows that people stop wor­king at 14:00 hours on Fri­days. The accused’s ori­gi­nal plan B would have taken a lot more lives in Oslo, and he would have had time enough to get to Utøya wit­hin 11:00 hours when Gro Har­lem Brundt­land was there. The accu­sed con­si­ders the lat­ter a class A trai­tor, who would the­re­fore be “executed”.

The accu­sed explai­ned that his orga­niza­tion has defined three clas­ses of natio­nal trai­tors. He said class A con­si­sts of the big­gest trai­tors and there are 12 of these in the coun­try. The accu­sed named Marie Michelet, Jens Stol­ten­berg, Jonas Gahr Støre, Gro Har­lem Brundt­land and Trine Skei Grande. The accu­sed went on to explain that there are 4500 class B trai­tors and men­tio­ned in par­ti­cu­lar Labour Party mem­bers. AUF mem­bers are denoted “Labour Party jugend” by the accu­sed, and these are class C traitors.

The accu­sed explai­ned that all cells in the orga­niza­tion have “a man­date to kill any class A or B trai­tor”. The accu­sed ack­now­led­ges that most people kil­led on Utøya belonged to class C and that he initi­ally did not have a man­date to kill them. Eva­lua­ting the situa­tion, how­e­ver, the accu­sed expec­ted them to be child­ren of class B trai­tors, so they would pro­bably end up as class B trai­tors them­sel­ves. The accu­sed tried to kill the oldest ones and “skip­ped two who looked very young.” The accu­sed descri­bed his actions as part of a long term ideo­lo­gical struggle, and when asked the accu­sed said that he would have done it again.

The aim of the imple­men­ta­tion of plan B was to “give a strong sig­nal” to the people. The accu­sed wan­ted to inflict “the grea­test pos­sible loss” on the Labour Party in order to “choke future recruit­ment.” The accu­sed explai­ned that the Labour Party has betrayed the coun­try and the people, and that they paid the price of betrayal yesterday.

“The ope­ra­tion was not to kill as many as pos­sible, but to give a strong sig­nal that can­not be mis­un­der­stood. I.e. as long as Labour follows its ideo­lo­gical line, con­ti­nuing to decon­struct Nor­we­gian cul­ture and mass import Mus­lims, they must take respon­s­i­bi­lity for this treachery. A per­son of con­science can­not let his coun­try be colo­nized by Muslims.”

The accu­sed explai­ned that if he were to iden­tify the two remai­ning cells, then it might save up to 300 lives. The accu­sed repeats seve­ral times that he is wil­ling to do so upon approval of require­ment list no. 1.

As regards deten­tion, the accu­sed wants to attend the incar­ce­ra­tion ses­sion in court. He con­si­ders it likely that there will be an attempt on his life, so the accu­sed would like the pos­sible use of “armor and visor” to be con­side­red. The accu­sed has no doubt that he wants an open court ses­sion with the press pre­sent. The accu­sed added that he would “rat­her take the risk of being shot down” than to have the ses­sion behind clo­sed doors. The accu­sed repeated that he wan­ted to wear a uni­form during this session.

The accu­sed ack­now­led­ges his actions, but not guilt.

next