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
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
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
220.127.116.11 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
18.104.22.168 Interview 23 July 2011
22.214.171.124 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
126.96.36.199 Fundamental delusions of greatness
- Knights Templar
- Interview with himself: Further studies, comp. page 1605
- Knights Templar Lodge, compendium page 1682
- Additional comments on the delusions of greatness
188.8.131.52 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
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. 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
6.1 Selection of tests
6.2. Global Assessment Functioning (GAF)
6.4 SCID 1
8.2 Diagnostic assessment
8.3 Detailed responses to mandate
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.
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.
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.
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.
184.108.40.206 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.