English

previous

2.5 Summary of the questioning of the individual under observation on DVD

There is a DVD with more than 100 hours of interrogation and the experts were immediately asked to go through them.

Each DVD interrogation has been reviewed by the experts. The case is so unusual and has such a dimension that the committee has deemed it appropriate to comply with the desire for review of all the questioning of him on CD and DVD. However, the DVD interrogations with perusals of previous interrogations are reviewed with less intensity, although Breivik has expressed himself extensively even when commenting earlier interrogation.

On the one hand, the experts considered it useful to have seen/heard the interrogations to assess Breivik’s mental condition, his behavior and the very contents of the interrogations. On the other hand, the experts find after review that there is little reason to report the interrogations in specific detail, just like the written interrogations. In the following, the experts declare their general impression of all the interrogations. Breivik’s account, behavior and mental state appear almost constant throughout the DVD interviews.

2.5.1 Interrogation recorded on CD dated 22 July 2011

The experts have with particular interest listened to this interview, which is available on audio files of 7-8 hours duration. The interrogation was made immediately after Breivik was arrested on Utøya and was conducted in the administration room on the island. The police summary of the interrogation is reproduced above. The CD recording is found to provide information on Breivik’s psychological state as close to the criminal acts as possible. In the following, the experts’ summary and assessment of the audio file is referred to.

Breivik appears with a slightly increased tension and he is somewhat agitated a couple of times, possibly a little angry. He is disappointed that he did not meet the police security service PST and thinks that the organized crime unit is not the right one to meet someone like him as an ideological prisoner. He repeatedly maintains that he will not negotiate with those present, as they are not the right ones and of little importance. He also repeats that he is probably to be regarded as a monster, that he can get 4-5 lifetime penalties and that he can be tortured and killed. He also supposes that his family is going to get killed.

Based on what they hear during this interrogation, the experts understand Breivik as clearly filled and absorbed by these delusions, intellectually as well as emotionally. He groans and sometimes has to stop during interrogation. He regrets that he is struggling, but says he might have been shot. He says sorry, may have shot myself. Probably abstinence I’m having. Now I am completely blown. My hearing is damaged. Severe pain. I have used steroids.

However, Breivik calms down rather early in the interrogation, and at least in the second part of it, he appears just like he does during subsequent interrogations. During the whole interrogation, Breivik refers to his belonging to the alleged organization Knights Templar. In that connection, he uses the plural we when referring to his motives.

Breivik repeatedly changes the subject without delay. At one moment, he discusses the demands regarding information exchange, only to emphasize in the next moment that his heart bleeds for what he has been forced to do today. After a few seconds, he discusses the thickness of his bulletproof armor as if the police were his peers, recommending that they use it, based on his own experience. The next moment, he explains in detail his status in the organization Knights Templar; he spells the name in Latin and describes what special personal qualities one must have to carry out an operation like the one he has done now. He repeatedly emphasizes his commander status.

The interrogation has two long breaks, but Breivik is calm all the time. He gives lengthy explanations of his political position, saying on one occasion I was in the Oslo City Council, but that was before I became a revolutionary. At times he speaks easily and effortlessly, and it almost seems like there is laughter in his voice when the interrogator discovers that Breivik’s residence, Åsta east, is the farm where XXXXX was previously to be found.

Breivik effortlessly repeats several times that today has been the worst day of his life and that he has dreaded this day for two years. Having uttered this, he immediately goes on to other details without any audible emotional involvement, stressing that he felt compelled by the Norwegian government.

At a certain stage in the second part of the sound files, Breivik emphasizes there are two cells connected to me; I will denounce them and make sure that two operations are averted against the introduction of capital punishment and water boarding (called water torture in Norwegian, experts’ remark) as torture in Norway.

He does not appear fragmented or particularly confused during interrogation, but he seems at first under pressure and easily agitated. He repeatedly presents himself as the commander of the Norwegian resistance movement. Going through the audio file, Breivik appears to have a moderate association disorder. There is no sign of incoherence during any part of the interrogation. After listening to the audio file, the experts have not made any assessment of the contents of Breivik’s descriptions.

2.5.2 Further interrogation of the individual under observation recorded on DVD

All DVD interrogations have been examined. During all the interrogations, Breivik is cooperative and polite. He does not appear incoherent at any time. Nor are signs of mood fluctuation observed, in particular no depression. During the examined interrogations, he does not show any hint of remorse, nor any emotional involvement, when he describes his actions. In a few cases, he must catch his breath when he is asked directly how he could kill the way he did, but after a few seconds only, he appears as untouched as before. He can behave in an overbearing manner towards the interrogator when asked whether he is tired, and he seems to make it a point of honor not to show signs of tiredness.

During the interrogation on 23 July 2011, Breivik is a bit more agitated than during later interrogations. This interrogation is also the only time where he is emotionally affected when he says yesterday was the worst day of my life. He also makes very strong statements, like if Labor changes direction, we are willing to forgive them and then there will be no more attacks.

During this interrogation, Breivik says that there were 13 people involved in the 2002 ordination meeting in London, i.e. 12 apart from himself. He also gives an account of his political views and of his action. He smiles mysteriously when asked about contacts with other cells. He declares that he has been alone, also in assessing and planning. He believes very few persons would have been able to carry out the criminal acts, and no woman.

When asked about his military background, he answers not officially, but upon further questions he says he hardly has any military training. Towards the end, he says he is surprised that the Norwegian regime does not use torture. Think it ought to be introduced in Norway.

The next interrogation is on 29 July 2011. Breivik wonders if someone from the government or the Labor sits behind the glass pane. Later, he ponders whether he will be recognized as Grand Master Knight and chief ideological leader by his French, Spanish and Greek brothers. He goes on to talk about the Knights Templar’s ideological demands, including the abolishment of government subsidies of the press, as well as the establishment of a national guardian council as an alternative to the Norwegian government.

From the interrogation on 3 August 2011, the experts have nothing to refer. Breivik’s appearance is unchanged.

During the interrogation on 9 August 2011, Breivik claims to have studied interrogation techniques for years. He makes statements about the criminal acts on Utøya completely without emotion. Breivik uses words that do not express emotion, like activated and executed, when he talks about the murders. He says it’s a hell, but his emotional response is inadequate in as much as he smiles an odd, inward-looking and stiffened smile when talking about some details. Breivik describes the events as a game on TV.

Breivik emotionlessly describes how he executed those who pretended they were dead. Had prepared for it and gave each of them a head shot, he said. One wastes a lot of ammo because you have to give many an extra head shot. He describes many of the murders he committed and says: But I thought that if someone is strong enough in Norway, that someone might be me. I feel that my people’s survival and my nation’s survival is worth it, these severe burdens (page 36, doc. 08.09.01).

During the interrogation on 10 August 2011, Breivik also appears unchanged. He is emotionless during the review of further details relating to the criminal acts on Utøya. He said had considered suicide before surrendering, but that this is not allowed. Breivik uses the term self-termination about deliberately ending his own life. He says he has made an oath that he will not commit suicide. Even upon the most grotesque descriptions of blood and cerebral matter, he shows no reaction and says he tried to delete or ignore it.

On 13 August 2011, a reconstruction of the criminal acts was carried out on Utøya. Here, too, Breivik appears not emotionally affected by what he discusses and describes. He strolls around and discusses the grotesque details of the murders as if it were an inspection at a construction site. He says he may have thought the reconstruction would be difficult in the beginning. He concludes by saying: I thought it would be very traumatic, but it was not.

During the interrogation on 26 August 2011, Breivik wonders if the media have done any self-examination now that people have spoken out. Also during this interrogation, he is completely unchanged. He tells about the Knights Templar, the Crusades and the historical background, and says: My task is to write a compendium. During the interrogation on 9 September 2011, there is a perusal with Breivik in a completely unchanged state.

During the interrogation on 30 September 2011, one discusses chemistry and bomb processing. Breivik participates with the same intensity as before. This also applies to the interrogation on 4 October 2011.

During the interrogation on 12 October 2011, the topic is whether Breivik has been in Liberia and details regarding this. Breivik does not want to answer. Later during the same interrogation, he is asked about his relationship with his mother and sister, and provides details about his own childhood. He also mentions that he is very talented and very intelligent, and he goes on to talk about the first million he earned, as well as the six millions he claims to have earned before he was 26 years old. If someone were to do it, it had to be me.

2.6 Examination of witnesses

At the moment of the experts’ review, 403 witnesses have been examined in the case. In the following, quotes or summaries are given of the examinations considered relevant to answering the committee’s mandate. Above all, a number of friends describe Breivik’s development. Information has also been obtained from close and remote relatives.

[Pages containing the examination of Breivik’s mother are omitted.]

2.6.2 Witness XXXXX, half sister on the father’s side of the individual under observation, doc. 09,09

The witness says that she rarely had contact with Breivik, for the most part in connection with Christmas. She has no detailed knowledge of him.

2.6.3 Witness, XXXXX, closest friend of the individual under observation, doc. 09,30

2.6.3.1 Interview 23 July 2011

The witness considers himself a very good friend of Breivik. They got to know each other during the 2nd year at high school. The witness describes a normal friend during adolescence and tells how Breivik dropped out of high school during the 3rd year to start his own company with the intention of getting rich. He thought that Breivik aspired to distinguish himself and not be part of the crowd.

Quoted from page 2 of the interview:

(…)

The witness was asked if the accused used to belong to circles of taggers before he got to know the witness. The witness confirmed this and said it ended after he got acquainted with the witness. The accused withdrew from these circles, but things remained from that period. Things like respect and that «the reputation follows you.»

Later, during the last three years, the accused started playing World of Warcraft. He isolated himself for a year and the witness met him perhaps only twice during this year. Occasionally they talked, but the accused was completely absorbed by the game.

The witness was asked if this had been the first year with so little contact with the accused. The witness confirmed this, it was the first year, three years ago.

(…)

From page 9 of the interview is quoted:

(…)

The witness was asked to describe the personality of the accused. He described him as very, very stubborn. If a number of buddies disagreed with the accused, he was unshakable. The witness described the suspect basically as kind and considerate towards persons close to him.

The witness added that the accused never used to tread on anyone’s toes, that he had had a high level of tolerance towards people.

The witness was asked whether he had experienced any changes in the accused’s personality lately. He said the accused had changed after he started playing, that he had distanced himself. The accused did not want a normal, middle-of-the-road life. The accused thought it was all a «rat race». About going to town and make as much money as possible. The witness thought that the accused was affected by this kind of life when growing up, but that he found out this was not so important. The accused never did anything half-heartedly. He threw himself completely into things.

The witness was asked if the accused started to play games the last three years. He said that was true, but that the accused had told the witness that he eventually had put the playing «on the shelf.» According to witnesses, the accused had done so. He doubted that the accused’s playing was the deciding factor. The accused said he had deserved the playing of games since he previously had worked uninterruptedly for three years with his different companies and projects.

(…)

From page 13 is quoted:

(…)

He had thought it was sad, but that it had been his father’s choice. The accused didn’t go around «and bear a grudge» because of this. The accused was not a person who «bore grudges,» he had a positive vision of life until he «fell into too much thought.»

Upon perusal the witness was asked to give further account of the accused’s state of mind, if he for instance had the impression that he at some time had been depressed. In the witness’ interpretation, the accused had isolated himself. It was not an indication that he was happy. The accused had always claimed that he was happy with his situation. Based on his knowledge of the accused, the witness made the interpretation that the accused isolated himself to protect the ones closest to him. Not to drag them into it.

(…)

Furthermore, from the last paragraph, page 13 and on from page 14, is quoted:

The witness was asked about the accused’s private life, if he possibly had a live-in or a girlfriend/partner. It was quite a while since he had spent his time on things like that. He had had some «occasional girls» here and there, but no relationship. During his youth he had not had any problem with this, as he had been in relationships. He was in a relationship when he was about to start one of his companies, and he broke up with her because he was to give priority to the company. His buddies thought this was odd, they thought that he could have had a girlfriend while doing other things.

Upon perusal the witness was asked if he knew anything about the accused’s sexual inclinations, if he might be gay. The witness then said that when he first became acquainted with the accused, he had regarded him as very feminine, which in today’s society is called metrosexual. The witness thought the fact that the accused had grown up with his mother and sister could partially explain this. Many had thought this about the accused, but the witness was not one of them.

The witness was asked if he had talked with the accused about this. He explained that this had been a joke among the boys, that there were many who had believed this. The witness would be surprised if there was something in it, but then he had been surprised in other ways. It did not appear to be true.

(…)

2.6.3.2 Interview 17 August 2011

In this second interview, the witness comments on the same topics as in the first. He provides no significant additional factors relevant to the forensic psychiatric statement.

2.6.4 Witness XXXXX, friend of the individual under observation, doc. 09,39

It is quoted from the middle of page 2:

They grew up a stone’s throw away from each other, but did not know each other so well before high school. They met in XXXXX high school. This was about 1995.

After XXXXX the accused started at XXXXX, where he got to know XXXXX and became good friends with XXXXX. They became a group of buddies and among these XXXXX was the accused’s closest friend. The witness and the accused were not as close, they did not tell each other secrets, for example. The accused had such a friendship with XXXXX.

The accused was very preoccupied with making money. He started several businesses, but the witness does not know so much about these. It went on during the course of about 10 years, and they used to meet because they were part of the same group of buddies. In 2006, the accused was living alone in XXXXX. There he had an office where he produced and sold fake diplomas. Shortly before Christmas that year, the accused suddenly decided to move home to his mother.

After that he cut all contact with his peers. XXXXX took this very hard. They had also invested money in the stock market together. They tried to get hold of him on many occasions, but he never answered the phone and was not interested in contact. Over the past 4 years, the witness has seen the accused 6-7 times. The witness remembers that the accused at a certain point had his head shaved smooth and said it was because his hair was so thin.

The accused often characterized today’s politicians as «multiculturalists», another term he used was «suicidal humane.» The witness thought this was weird, crazy or funny. The witness and the accused have always been opposites, also as regards political points of view.

At a certain time, when three had passed since they had close contact, the accused got back in touch with the witness. He told the witness that he was writing a book, but the witness does not know what kind of book he was talking about. Furthermore, the accused told that he had rented a farm in Hedmark. He would pay 10,000 kroner a month for it. He had a rental contract for one year.

[…]

The witness was asked to tell what reasons the accused gave for renting this farm.

The witness thought that the accused was out to make money, because the accused was always concerned about status symbols and material goods. It would never occur to him e.g. to deliver empty bottles and get the deposit back, because it was too humiliating for him. The accused also talked about «sugar beta,» which the witness does not know what is. The witness thinks this was surprising, because the accused had never lived in the countryside or on a farm. He thought that it was just one of those weird things the accused wanted to do.

The witness went on to explain that the accused has always been very enterprising, and that he succeeds once he gets started. Therefore, the witness thought that also in this case, the goal was to make money.

The witness was asked to explain what kind of companies the accused has had.

He explained that the accused has been involved in advertising. Among other things, he has negotiated contracts regarding advertising space on various apartment buildings. The accused’s company was acquired by JCDK (spelling uncertain), which the witness knows is relatively large today. The accused made some money on this, but the witness does not know how much, since the accused has never talked about how much money he has. There was reportedly talk about a couple of hundred thousand for this. After that he sold the aforementioned fake diplomas. Money was transferred to the accused’s account from all over the world. At at certain point, the accused had also rebuilt a newspaper cart or bicycle, and he hired an unemployed graduate who would ride around with this vehicle in Oslo to advertise for various companies. The construction was not very good, however, and not much came out of this.

The witness was asked to describe the accused’s personality throughout the years they grew up together.

The accused has among other things told him that as a little boy he used to put mustard in the anus of cats to afflict them in this manner. The witness thought it was sadistic and was provoked. The witness, however, never thought that the accused could do anything like the things he has been arrested for. On the other hand, the accused has always been a «deviant» with strange opinions. This witness believes that the majority in any group of people will confirm, like «wow, is he saying that.» The accused is a peculiar fellow, he has been an enterprising person who had a knack for making money.

For some time, the accused had a hang-up on physical exercise, in particular body building. He often skipped the first lesson in high school because he would rather work out. Not long before yesterday’s events, the accused said in front of the witness and several others that he could not drink beer, since he took anabolic steroids. The witness thought it was strange that someone could say something like that in such a group of people.

The accused used to be like that. He made provocative statements, often divergent, about women and political views. He thought for example that there would be a majority of immigrants in Norway within a few years, and that the political parties were not addressing this adequately. This accused has talked about this many times, and people have been amazed by his views. Then the accused has often laughed and been pleased that he has managed to provoke people.

2.6.5 Witness XXXXX, friend of the individual under observation, doc. 09,42.

From page 2 of the interview is quoted:

(…)

The witness said they were good friends while growing up, but that the contact has been more sporadic in recent years. According to the witness, the accused has always had a peculiar personality, but the witness said that he did not perceive the accused as behaving or acting in any unusual way while they were children. They were a lot together and the witness felt that the accused was «like everyone else.»

(…)

The witness said that the accused did not have so many friends, and the friends he had are also close friends of the witness. The group of friends has kept together since they attended Smestad elementary school. These are talented and well educated people in good jobs. The accused has always been the «outsider». The witness can not put into words the way in which the accused has been «outsider», but emphasizes that nothing indicated that he would do what he has done, but that his involvement in politics was a part of this.

(…)

Apart from that, the witness told about Breivik’s withdrawal in recent years, as well as his involvement in computer games and the book project. The witness said he never got any detailed information about this. He has also noted that Breivik moved to Rena. He found it strange that Breivik would become a farmer, but didn’t think any more about it.

2.6.6 Witness XXXXX, girlfriend of a friend of the individual under observation, Doc. 09,55

The witness has been the girlfriend of witness XXXXX for a few years. She describes Breivik as a bit peculiar, very preoccupied with politics, with strange opinions and secluded in his cave.

2.6.7 Witness XXXXX, friend of the individual under observation, doc. 09,60

From page 2 of the interview the following is quoted regarding a change in Breivik:

(…)

The witness was asked to tell whether he felt that the accused had been different in recent years. The witness said «definitely.» He said they were an ordinary group of buddies and that the accused «went underground». The accused was running his internet business, but he closed it down. He moved home to his mother in 2006 or 2007. The witness said that a little group went hunting the same autumn in which the accused moved back to his mother. Later that autumn, the witness invited the accused to a birthday party. The accused said he would come, but did not appear. He made many excuses and started to be «a little strange.» The witness said that on the accused’s own birthday a few years after he moved home to his mother, the group went home to see the accused. They talked a lot about the accused having withdrawn. They rang the accused’s door bell and it looked like someone was home. But they had to go. They wanted to take the accused out for a beer or two.

(…)

2.6.8 Witness XXXXX, friend of the individual under observation, doc. 09,67

The witness belonged to a group of friends during high school and has lived with Breivik. He saw him as taciturn, yet sympathetic. The witness is unable to understand what has happened. He felt that Breivik was antisocial and heard that he caught a gambling fever.

2.6.9 Witness XXXXX, acquaintance of the individual under observation, doc. 09,132

The witness got to know Breivik in 2003 and dated his friend XXXXX for some time. In the beginning, she felt he was normal and rather pleasant, though somewhat odd and intense. She says: There was always something with Anders.

From the 4th section of page 4 of the interview is quoted:

(…)

That summer, the witness remembered she said to XXXXX that perhaps they should seek professional help to deal with the accused’s gambling addiction. Considering everything that had happened, the witness felt that the accused had changed from a very resourceful person who had his own company with employees. Gradually, things began to fall apart. At first, he lost his employees, then he closed down the company and moved home to his mother. The witness saw this as typical of a person who had become addicted to gambling and given up his life. Then XXXXX told the witness that things were going better with the accused, that he did not play as much anymore. In addition, he came along to a cafe and and had dinner when XXXXX asked him to join.

Upon perusal, the witness said that this happened the year before he started writing the book, it was not that same summer. It might have been the school year 2006-2007.

Description of the accused

(The witness took out a note she had prepared before the examination, where she had written things that described the accused, she used this as a handout sheet. She had also made a timeline of dates and events where she had met the accused. The police could attach this sheet to the examination documents.

The witness explained that the accused’s appeared very meticulous, clean and tidy. He was also very snobbish. He was interested in watches and clothes, and he boasted, among other things, that he had «Versage porcelain.» Witness had reacted to this and stated that «no boys of our age bought Versage porcelain.» The accused had a short Canada Goose jacket that he thought that was very cool. His buddies laughed and joked a lot with him because of his style, e.g. that he wore Lacoste shirts with the collar folded up, as was fashionable about 5 years ago. The accused was also very careful with his hair and beard.

The witness told a story about that ex-girlfriend XXXXX and the accused.[…] A few years after they had finished high school, the accused had decided to have a nose operation. At that time, he had asked XXXXX whether they could both have surgery, since it would be cheaper if they did it together. The witness did not know whether the accused had been serious when he spoke to XXXXX. This story was retold to her by XXXXX. It was obvious that the accused had done a nose job, because his nose was very straight and pointed.

(…)

Furthermore, from page 9 is quoted:

Changes in the accused

The witness told that the accused had changed a lot since the first time she had met him and during the years she had known him (until 2009, experts’ note ) At first he was very resourceful, he had his company and everything went well. He also went out with his mates. Eventually things went downhill for him, e.g. after the incident with XXXXX from Belarus. He also lost his employees and in the end his business. Then he began to play World of Warcraft. According to XXXXX, the accused lost his apartment because he could not afford paying for it. The accused moved home to his mother and played games around the clock.

The witness was not sure if the accused moved home because he could not pay, but she thought so because the apartment cost him 9-12000 kroner a month. The witness recalled that he had to pay rent to live with his mother.

When XXXXX took him out, the accused was thin and pale. At this point, the witness told XXXXX that the accused needed help. XXXXX then told that the accused’s mother was happy that the accused was home. She wanted him there and did not see it as unusual that he lived there. XXXXX tried to explain to the accused’s mother that he could not live there because this was a disservice. The accused’s mother had not quite realized this. The things about the accused’s mother were things XXXXX had told her.

The witness added that this period was in 2006-2007. The accused was much quieter during this period, he talked less and was much less intense.

The witness explained that XXXXX had rang the accused’s door bell numerous times in order to take him out to do things, but the accused had not opened the door for him.

This was mostly in the period when the accused was still living in his apartment at Frogner. The witness was unsure how often this had happened, not countless times, but perhaps several times.

2.6.10 Witness XXXXX, former wife of the father of the individual under observation, doc. 09,261

It is quoted from page 1 of the interview page:

The witness explained that from 1983 to 1994, she was married to XXXXX, the father of the accused Anders Behring Breivik. Before that, the witness and […] for several years. They both worked in XXXXX and have known each other since the late 1960s.

The witness did not know the accused during the first few years of his life. It was only when the witness and XXXXX moved from XXXXX that she the accused more often. Then they took him on vacations and trips abroad. In 1994 they moved to XXXXX.

He was often visited them there, and he seemed like a normal young boy. That accused has probably always had a special relationship with the witness, while XXXXX has been a bit more absent while he grew up. The witness knows that the accused has missed the close contact with XXXXX. She also knows that XXXXX has stated to media that the accused did not want any contact with him, but this is wrong. The accused did not have a particularly acting-out behavior through adolescence. He was a nice guest. The witness and XXXXX were in a lawsuit about the custody of him, this information has also reached the media now. The reason for this was a bit particular. When asked what the reason was, the witness explained that the accused lived with his mother, XXXXX and his half-sister in Oslo. When the accused was about 4 years old, probably in 1983, the witness is not sure about the year/age, the witness and XXXXX received a call from neighbors of XXXXX and the children. They said that there was noise in the apartment, more than usual.

The witness was asked to explain more in detail what was said about the noise.

She explained that they got a call from these neighbors, whose names she no longer remembers. The neighbors said that the kids spent too much time alone, and there was much trouble there, which the witness was very upset to hear. She and XXXXX decided to apply for custody of the accused. She believes that it was difficult for XXXXX to take care of two small children alone and she also worked evening shifts. She had no objection to taking custody of the accused. In this connection, the witness had some contact with XXXXX and thought she seemed quite straightforward. The witness never had any problems with XXXXX.

The application for custody was rejected, and XXXXX was allowed to keep the accused. There has not been any bad blood between the witness and XXXXX because of this.

(…)

Furthermore, from the bottom of page 2 of the interview:

They have, however, had some contact when she has been in Norway. For example they have met to have a cup of coffee together and things like that. On those occasions, they talked about this and that and the witness remembers that the accused was keen to impress her. He liked to tell about his contact with the Masonic lodge, and how he would climb up the political machinery of power through his positions in the FRP. He also had several different companies that the witness was not particularly interested in. She knows that he has been doing some advertising posters, and that he has sold mobile covers. The way she sees it, the accused has always been keen to show he can manage.

The accused also talked about how rich he would become, and one day he would show his father that he also can manage. He would assert himself.

When the witness has met the accused in recent years, he has also said that he was writing a book. As far as witness knew, it would be a book with many quotes, and that the accused wrote about various historical events. She remembers she was impressed by the accused’s knowledge of history. He kept working on this book for many years, and he kept saying that he had a lot more to write before it was finished. The witness also remembers that the accused was critical towards Islam. He insisted that Islam’s entry into the Western world was a negative thing, and thought about how it would end. The witness did not enjoy discussing this with the accused, so she avoided getting into discussions about it. She does not have the same views as he. Still, there was nothing the accused said about the contents of the book that would indicate a terrorist message.

The witness was asked to talk about any episodes from the accused’s childhood that she remembers well.

She explained that she did not remember any particular episodes. She remembers that he was very contact-seeking and grateful for the attention he got, for example when someone agreed to read to him before bedtime. He was humble in this way. She also perceived the accused as a modest and quiet boy, who had no special problems in childhood. The witness noticed, however, that the accused to a certain extent was bitter about his father, since he did not spend enough time with him or the other siblings.

(…)

From the bottom of page 3 of the interview is quoted:

At this meeting, the accused said that he would no longer to try to contact his father. He got no response and did not bother any more.

The witness was asked to tell about the relationship between the accused and his mother XXXXX.

She told that she has good impression of the relationship between them. The witness spoke with XXXXX in March this year, and she said that the accused had taken a trip to Sweden to pick up equipment for his company. Then he had been living at home for a while. The witness does not remember the name of the company in question. The accused has had a variety of businesses, but the witness was never involved in any of them.

(…)

2.6.11 Witness XXX, a former friend, doc 09,289

The witness is the childhood friend of Breivik. He is mentioned in Breivik’s compendium as a XXXXX friend. The development of the witness is commented in the compendium, and has been referred to the witness during examination.

The witness said he is sad to be mentioned in that way. He says he experienced Breivik as a good, resourceful friend to rely on.

From page 5 of the interview is quoted:

The witness thinks that Anders has designed his past in order to construct a causal relationship behind what he has done. The witness can never understand why he has done this. When asked if he has read this himself, the witness replied that he has gone through the whole manifesto, and with particular attention read the part about Anders’s private life. He has read and formed an impression

The witness is very sad that he is mentioned in the way he is.

When asked what he thinks about the things Anders has written about him, the witness answers that he does not understand why he wrote those things. Some of the things are direct contradictions.

Witness says the contradiction is that he (Anders) says he stopped hanging out with witness XXXXX at time A. He also writes that the witness stopped hanging out with XXXXX in favor of his XXXXX friends. This is at time B. Finally, he writes that he (Anders) lived under the protection of the witness and his XXXXX friends, implying that he was hanging out with them. This at time C. It is irrational. To associate the witness to Islamic principles that he (Anders) dislikes, he constructs a story that he was hanging out with XXXXX in order to show that he lived under protection. He places himself in a certain context, in which he has already positioned himself somewhere else. He was out of the picture.

The times are quite illustrative. Anders needed a story. He forgot to check that it did not fit. Among other things, Anders never hung out with the witness when the latter started hanging out with his XXXXX friends and that he lived under the protection of the witness and his XXXXX friends. The witness perceives that Anders relates the witness to certain Islamic principles.

The witness states that Breivik in his compendium has made up things about the witness and that the descriptions are either directly erroneous, such as the Muslim identity and the events thereof, or heavily manipulated. As an example of the latter, the witness says that Breivik has constructed stories about an extensive criminal history of the witness and that he has been in jail. This witness says this is wrong.

2.6.12 Other witnesses with personal knowledge of the individual under observation

Numerous witnesses who have peripheral knowledge of Breivik, both in his family and among former acquaintances, have been examined. Common to all these is that they only have peripheral and impersonal knowledge of Breivik (for example doc. 09,324, former colleague) and no up-to-date or specific knowledge of him in recent years.

An example of the latter is the witness in doc 09,307 who had peripheral knowledge of Breivik from the Tåsen environment and who provides a somewhat different description of the environment and the events there than Breivik, whose compendium has described a much more dramatic situation than the witness does.

The witness XXXXX Doc 09,350) worked with Breivik (the witness said he fired Breivik from the company), but does not describe any personal contact apart from a political disagreement that led to a breach from Breivik’s side. The witness is named by Breivik as his mentor. The witness dissociates himself from this and has written corrective comments to this on Facebook.

In doc. 09,354, a XXXXX mother of one of Breivik’s childhood friends and Breivik’s XXXXX describes a non-conspicuous contact with Breivik and his family throughout Breivik’s childhood.

Some witnesses from completely different environments believe they have had homosexual contact with Breivik.

2.6.13 Witnesses on the mainland (Utøya doc. 09,01,01, 09,01,02 and 09,01,15)

These witnesses were present when Breivik arrived at the ferry landing on the mainland and had contact with him. Breivik showed some ID and asked to be brought over to the island immediately. The witness examinations do not show that the witnesses observed anything particular about him.

2.6.14 Utøya: Report from head of police operation Gåsbakk, doc. 07,01,01

From the witness examination is quoted:


(…)

The first boat with five Delta officers arrived on the island about 30 seconds to 1 minute before us. They got information from people who came running that the perpetrator was in the north of Utøya. They ran immediately in that direction.

As we approached Utøya, we heard many bangs from a weapon and saw projectile impacts at the southern tip of the island. We went immediately in that direction. We started to run along the waterline, but soon went deeper into the island and went along a tractor road to the school room. We were then three men from Delta, police sergeant XXXXX and myself.

When we came to the schoolroom, I was aware that two shots had been fired into the window on the front door. I realized then that the accused had been there. Meanwhile, the officers from the Delta started to shout armed police. We went diagonally across an open field and through the bush. Delta officers observed the accused, and he stood before us with his hands raised above his head.

The accused was wearing a «home-made» police uniform. He had black trousers with a reflector on each leg. He was also wearing a tight black shirt with police markings on each upper arm. I perceived it as if the police label was taped on. He also had pockets rigged on the stomach. These were filled with magazines containing live ammunition. He also had ear plugs with a cable that were connected to an iPod.

The accused followed our orders. He lay down on the ground and was handcuffed. He said that he considered us brothers and that he was not going after us (the police). He also said this was a coup d’etat and the goal was to harm Labor, which was Islamizing Norway.

He said that he was one of three cells. One cell had placed the bomb in the government building, he was cell number two on Utøya and the third cell had not implemented its plans yet.

When the third cell implemented its plans, it would be hell. The accused said that he would not say anything else. If he were to say more, the police had to meet several demands that he had. The accused also complained about pains in a finger where he had a wound.

The accused was wearing a leg holster with a gun on his right thigh. The gun slide was in the rear position with an empty magazine in the weapon. This was a 9 mm pistol. A two-handed weapon was found 5-10 meters behind the accused. The weapon had a magazine with several cartridges. According to officials from the Delta, there were also shots in the chamber. This weapon had a caliber of 5.56 mm.

The accused remained there with police sergeant XXXXX from Delta, and the rest of us went out to the southern tip of the island. First aid and evacuating the wounded was initiated there.

There were two dead persons a few meters behind the accused.

I went back to the dock at Utøya and joined the operative head of Delta, detective inspector XXXXX, who was there with Delta crews. We were informed at this stage that there were several perpetrators of the island. It was said there were three to five perpetrators.

Detective inspector XXXXX sent out crews to search through the island to reveal any other perpetrators, as well as do first aid and evacuate the wounded. There was a continuous flux of evacuees who came running, and more injured people were brought forward. These were transported in boats to the mainland. Apart from the ferry Utøya, the boats belonged to volunteers, the Red Cross, the fire brigade etc. Police personnel from various districts also arrived. They were sent out to evacuate people and give first aid.

There were also boats with police and volunteers around the island involved in first aid and evacuating people who had gone into hiding in the mountain slopes and fallen down on the waterfront pebbles.

After a while, the accused was taken to the main house on the island, and handed over to officials of the Oslo Police, police sergeant XXXXX and police sergeant XXXXX.

(…)

2.7 Child Welfare Service/Social Welfare Service/Child and Adolescent Psychiatry

A significant amount of documents from the early 1980s regarding a child custody law-suit and observation at the National Center for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry are attached to the documents relating to the case. Attached are also documents from 1994 to 1995, when the child welfare service did an investigation in connection with Breivik having been arrested for tagging.

2.7.1 Child care case 1981-1984

Respite care home 1981

The case starts in 1981 when Breivik’s mother contacts the social security service, where a document dated 3 August 1981 states that she applied for a stay in a weekend home for Breivik, perhaps also for his sister. The application is justified by her single parent care for the children with little relief, since she has no friends or relatives in Oslo. She describes her son as very demanding and she has gradually been worn down both physically and mentally. To improve her revenue, she was planning to take a half night shift job as a nurse. The application is recommended in a decision dated 16 October 1981 and respite care homes are available.

National Center for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry SSBU 1983-1984

Breivik’s mother contacted the family counseling office early in 1983 and was then referred SSBU, where she and the children were received in the family division for a stay from 1 to 25 February 1983. From page 2 of the admission note is quoted:

 

[omitted pages]

 

2.7.2 Child custody case 1983

At some point during the spring of 1983, the father enters the case with a lawyer and he receives a letter dated 25 August 1983 containing treatment information from SSBU, in which the institution expresses its concerns. The father wants custody of Breivik, but the mother contests via her lawyer. There is some correspondence between the lawyers and on 3 October 1983, the City Court of Oslo passes a preliminary judgment in favor of the mother. Meanwhile, the court has decided to appoint two experts to investigate the matter. In the meantime, Breivik shall stay with his mother.

Upon the judgment, the father gives up his claim for custody and the City Court of Oslo concludes the matter in a new judgment on 23 October 1983, when the parties in joint pleadings consider the matter as settled.

The father stated his reasons through his lawyer in a letter to SSBU dated 6 October 1983. From the letter is quoted:

The City Court has now given its ruling in the above case in favor of XXXXX.

After the court session, XXXXX and his wife XXXXX have started to hesitate. At first, they had the feeling it was clear that Anders was in an emergency situation and they did not hesitate not to welcome Anders in their home.

Now, however, they feel that they have to fight to get Anders. This is a new situation and suddenly they feel placed in circumstances they’ve never had the intention to end up in. They want to have Anders if his current situation is untenable, but they will not blacken his current situation to get him.

XXXXX is therefore of the opinion that if the public authority finds that Anders’ situation is untenable, then by virtue of its authority it should do something about it, and his desire to take charge of Anders is in force.

I have now tried to shed light on XXXXX’s and XXXXX’s views on the matter, and would like to hear your comments.

After this, a letter dated 28 October 1983 is sent from SSBU represented by psychologist XXXXX to the XXXXX social security office, in which XXXXX summarizes the situation, concluding as follows:

Consequently, a new situation has emerged that the child welfare authorities have to deal with. We confirm our original conclusion that Anders’ care situation is so failing that he is in danger of developing more severe psychopathology, and hereby we repeat our assessment on the necessity of a changed care situation for Anders. We believe this is our duty according to the Children Act, § 12, cf. § 16 a. Now that the father has withdrawn his lawsuit, the child welfare service should take up the matter on its own initiative.

The child welfare service perceives this as a note of concern and begins an investigation that ends with a report dated 4 April 1984. From page 3 of the report it is quoted:

Current situation:

XXXXX social welfare district has examined the matter in accordance with the Child Welfare act § 17 during home visits by our home consultant on 19 December 1983, 9 January 1984 and 8 February 1984, and through contacts with the mother at the office.

From the outset, the office found that the family functioned well. The mother seemed orderly and neat, with control – easy to talk to, calm and unaffected whatever the content of the conversation.

The girl was quiet, well behaved and gentle.

A was a sympathetic, relaxed guy with a warm smile that immediately makes one like him. During conversation at home, he was busy at the dinner table with games, clay and playmo together with the mother and the home consultant. After a while he remained sitting alone in the kitchen while we were talking in the living room. There was never any argument, neither were bad words uttered between the family members. A was very well behaved, never grumpy neither in opposition. The mother does not change her expression and does not get excited in difficult situations with A. She speaks quietly and A receives the message and does what she says.

Although the situation seemed one of natural harmony during our home visits, we have reason to ask how the family members react in difficult situations when the home consultant is not present. These observations were made in the morning, afternoon and good night situations, respectively. The first home visit was announced, the last two were not.

The mother proposes the following solutions:

The mother would like to be relieved by the father using his visiting rights.

Assessment: 37 year old divorced woman with custody of 2 children: girl born -73 and A. born -79.

The announcement from the national center and the report regard A: «The mother has been in sporadic contact with our office since the separation from A’s father in the summer of 1980.

From September -82 until July -83, the contact was periodic. From October -83, she has had some financial help in addition to the home visits in connection with the child welfare case.

In the period until to the moment when the mother contacted the National Center for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in January -83, the case officer was increasingly concerned, in particular about A’s situation. Gradually, it became evident that in crisis situations, it was extremely difficult for her to function in relation to A: […]

The case officer felt that the mother could benefit from contact with the treatment services and saw it as very favorable, both for her and for her relation to A, when she got in touch.

That the national center concluded by proposing placement in a foster home was somewhat surprising, but one found it appropriate to support this conclusion, in particular because the mother had proposed such a solution several times herself. At that time, the case was not submitted to the child welfare committee, because the father proposed to take over custody.

After this, for several months one did not have any contact with the mother for several months, because one knew that the case was on trial.

When the notification came from the National Center XXXXX in a letter dated 28 October 1983, one found reason to take it very seriously based on previous knowledge of the family. An investigation was launched in accordance with the Child Welfare act § 17.

One found that the family’s situation was slightly changed. They have settled in a new house and life seems to have become more stable. According to the kindergarten, A. functions very well and they have no remarks to the relationship between him and his mother.

The case officer still believes there is reason to be concerned about how the mother will be able to come to overcome subsequent crises, but does not find that this concern in itself is enough to suggest care takeover.

One has considered what other measures the office can take, including supervision of the family. The office has very limited resources for regular follow-up of the family and will suggest home visits about once a month. The purpose of proposing supervision is to keep up to date with the family’s situation and possibly prevent it from getting under more pressure. Despite the fact that the situation now looks more stable, we know that at times the mother cannot manage. She has also expressed that she has a hard time handling the situation. Again, one will discuss with the mother if she is interested in a support person or in a weekend home for A. to get other adult contacts than just herself.

It is also important that the parents find a practical solution regarding the possibility of A. to have contact with his father. The mother also desires this.

Conclusion: Despite sharing to a large extent the concern expressed in the notification from psychologist XXXXX at the National Centre for child and adolescent psychiatry, one finds that foster home placement is out of the question in the current situation. Cf. Child Welfare Act § 19. However, one suggests supervision for a short period ending in December 1984 for the social security office to keep continuously informed about the family situation and follow A’s development.

Proposal:

1. The home is put under supervision in accordance with Child Care act § 18 a: «Depending on the circumstances in each case, the committee may carry out one or more of the following preventive measures:

a) Put the home under supervision by appointing a supervisor for the child under the provisions of Chapter VI » cf. § 16 a:

«Protective measures relevant to this section may be taken for children under 18 years of age

a) when the child is treated or is living under such conditions that its health (physical/mental) or development is subject to damage or serious risk.

We base our proposal of supervision on the mother’s repeated inquiries with the desire to get help in crisis situations, for example to get the children placed in foster homes, weekend homes etc. and that she often has changed her mind afterwards regarding the necessity and usefulness of this. We therefore find it necessary to follow up on the family situation in a short period of time, through regular contact with the social security office.

We also build our proposal on the statement in connection with the announcement from the National Center for child and adolescent psychiatry, i.e. Anders’ care situation is so precarious that he is in danger of developing more severe psychopathology.

2. The supervision will be carried out by XXXXX.

3. New report within 1 January 1985.

On 25 June 1984, the child welfare committee in Oslo reached the following decision:

The mother, XXXXX and social security officer XXXXX met and gave their opinions.

Based on the lawyer’s report and the present situation of the family, the child welfare committee has decided the following:

Unanimous resolution: 1 The committee finds that the conditions for protective measures are not present, according to the child care act § 16 a. Case is dismissed as of the investigations carried out, according to the child care act § 17.

2.7.3 Child care case 1994-1995

In 1994/95 a new child care case was opened when the subject, then 15 years old, was caught on the train from Denmark alone with a large number of spray cans in his luggage. The case was dismissed without assistance and child welfare work, and the conclusion of the matter is reproduced below:

Termination of investigation by the Child Welfare Act § 4-3. Dismissal without any action by the same law.

03/15/95
Caseworker: XXXXXXXXXXXX
NAME:
Anders Behring Breivik, personal identification number XXXXXXXXXXXX

BACKGROUND / MESSAGE CONTENT

Message received from the child welfare services in Oslo 23.12.94. The boy was stopped at Oslo Central Station by the police when he arrived by train from Denmark with 43 spray cans in his bag. His mother did not know he was in Denmark.

He has been in Denmark once before without telling the mother. The boy has two previous charges for graffiti / vandalism. (February / March 1994).

Given the child welfare service’ information, this is assessed as worrisome and the case is conveyed to the child welfare service at Ullern social center for information and possible follow-up.

The message was clarified on 1/13/95.

CASEWORK

18/01/95: Telephone inquiries to Oslo police station for more information about who is responsible for the case there.

25/01/95: Phone Enquiries from Majorstua police with information about which school the boy attends, as well as information that he socializes with a known tagger group.

25/01/95: Conversation with the boy and mother in the office.

01/30/95: Conversation with the boy in the office.

02/02/95: Letter from Anders stating he does not want more cooperation with the child protection services because of «revelations» in school.

07/02/95: Appointment with the boy in the office. Did not show up.

13/02/95: Appointment with the mother and the boy here in the office. None of them showed up.

The initial conversation was largely influenced by the details and clarifications of the described conditions.

His mother is worried that her son will end up in a criminal career. The boy has a more trivializing relation to what the message is about.

Based on what came up in conversation, the mother and the boy have reconciled regarding his visits to Denmark.

EVALUATION / Conclusion

We entered into a cooperative relationship with the boy and his mother, but later, the boy wrote a letter to us in which he stated that he did not want further collaboration with child protection services. The mother has also withdrawn the statement of consent to the collection of information.

The conditions described are seen as not very serious from the child welfare service. The fact that the boy has been in Denmark alone, without the parents’ permission can in itself be bad enough, but in isolation it is more a family matter that does not require special intervention by child welfare services.

When it comes to tagging / vandalism, these are matters that are settled in relation to the injured after the conflict mediation council 6/21/94.

The conversation with the mother gave the impression that she is looking seriously at the described conditions. She also gives the impression of being able to solve problems herself at home, possibly in cooperation with the boy’s father.

What is left as a real concern is the sense of belonging he possibly has with the tagger community, such communities have a reputation for having activities and behavior that can border on criminal activities. The boy himself said he does not socialize with the tagger community anymore.

The case is not considered to be serious enough to intervene with assistance from the child welfare services.

The terms of § 4-4 of the Child Welfare Act is not considered to be present, so the investigation is dismissed without further assistance.

Ullern social center, child welfare services.

next