4. Interviews with persons who know the subject

4.1 Interview with the mother of the subject by both experts on 14 August 2011

The police informed the experts that the subject’s mother during the night of 23 July 2011 was admitted to the psychiatric ward of Diakonhjemmets hospital. This is the ward where expert Husby has his main job as head of the ward. At this time, expert Husby was on vacation.

When the expert Husby returned from his vacation, it was immediately made clear to the interviewee’s chief physician and treating physician that he would not participate in treatment meetings or other meetings where the interviewee was discussed. It was also clarified that the expert Husby would not have access to the interviewee’s journal.

The expert Sørheim took contact with the interviewee’s treating physician, dr. XXXXXXXX, a few days earlier to ask the interviewee via him if she would be willing to participate in conversations with the experts. Doctor XXXXXXX reported back by telephone that the interviewee accepted to do this.

The conversation took place at the expert Husby’s office at Diakonhjemmets hospital. The interviewee was initially informed of the expert Husby’s situation as head of department at the hospital, but without access to interviewee’s journal or therapy in general. The interviewee had no comments to this.

The interviewee was then informed of the committee’s mandate and information duty to the court, also on information provided by the interviewee. The interviewee accepted this and was willing to talk. The interviewee met the experts alone. The conversation lasted for three hours.

The interviewee initially said that she looked forward to the conversation, because she thinks psychiatry is interesting. She also immediately said that it has been a terrible burden to be the subject’s mother recently, especially in light of what was written in the media. The interviewee expressed being upset and angry by a lot of what she perceived as incorrect journalism.

The interviewee says the subject was born in 1979 and was a wanted and planned child. She already had a six year old daughter, XXXXXXXX, from a previous relationship. The subject’s father, the interviewee, XXXXX and the subject moved to London shortly after the subject was born. It came to a break-up between the interviewee and the subject’s father when the subject was one and a half years old. At this time, the interviewee moved back to Oslo.

When asked, the interviewee says that she does not know of any mental illness in the subject’s family, neither on the father’s nor the mother’s side.

The family, consisting of the interviewee, the subject and his half sister moved first into an apartment owned by the subject’s father XXXXXXXX in Oslo. The interviewee says she had the right to use the apartment until the subject reached the age of 18.

When the subject was about three and a half years old, the family moved to a five-room apartment on the XXXXXXXX in Oslo. The interviewee took out loans through OBOS and Oslo Municipality to finance the apartment. She was at this time in full-time job as a nurse and the subject went to Vigelandsparken kindergarten.

The interviewee can not remember that there were any particular concerns regarding the subject’s development through the younger years. She says: It came to a trial because Anders’ (The subject, the experts note) father wanted the boy to move in with them. In this connection, we stayed a period at the National Center for Child and Youth Psychiatry, but neither of us liked it there.

As far as the interviewee can remember, the subject enjoyed both kindergarten and home until he started school.

The subject started attending Smedstad school at the usual age. He was a good student, she says. The subject had friends, the family had good neighbors and it was a very, very good time. The subject’s sister XXXXX did fine, and the interviewee says that the subject was a boy it was easy to have good conversations with.

Through the years from 1st to 6th grade, it was never reported by the school or at parent’s meetings that the subject had academic, social or behavioral difficulties. He was never referred to evaluations of any kind and there was never any need for additional training or educational interventions for him.

As the others in the class, he started at Ris junior high school in for the 7th grade. The interviewee says: Nothing particular happened, he started to deliver the newspaper and did so for many years. I understood that everything was okay and did not hear anything else from the school either.

The interviewee says that the subject became tall and thin during the junior high school years. It was probably some of a complex for him< (i>, she says. After being introduced to a gym by his six years older sister, the subject started to exercise regularly. He exercised just about the right amount then, she says, adding: not like Rambo as he did this winter.

As the interviewee remembers, the subject did well academically in junior high as well. She was asked if he changed his circle of friends or made new friends. Not that I recall, she said. She adds: But I remember that he was caught for tagging once.

The episode the interviewee is referring to, took place when the subject was 14 years old. He began to buy spray cans and tagged with friends, she says. He made great «pieces», but it is not allowed. We were several parents who worked together to try to reveal the purchase of spray cans. And then the police called and said they had caught him.

The interviewee says the subject got away with community service and a fine of 3,000 kroner. She adds that he had to use his savings to pay the fine. She also says: His father got to know about it, and he was terribly angry. He kind of closed the door on Anders then.

When the subject was 15 years old, in 1994, the family moved to XXXXXXXXXXX in Oslo. The interviewee says his big sister XXXXXXXX at this time had left home and that they therefore needed less space.

After finishing junior high, the subject started attending the commercial high school Oslo Handelsgym. The experts say that the subject himself said that before this he spent a year at Hartvig Nissen High School. This the mother does not believe this to be correct. It appears, however, that the mother in that year was diagnosed with XXXXXXXX and underwent surgery for this in 1995. She says she generally remembers little from this period because she was seriously ill.

The interviewee lived with the subject in XXXXXXXX until she moved to XXXXXXXX in 2001. This move coincided with the subject leaving home, and staying with a group in XXXXXXXX in Frogner.

The interviewee says she thought it went well at the Oslo Handelsgym until the subject after one and half year came home and said he would drop out of school. She remembers that he said he had enough experience, would start for himself, and said he did not need more education.

The interviewee says she was angry that he left school before he had completed high school. She says she was upset and very sad. She thought the subject had become so stubborn. She comments: Half of what he has told the police are lies. He has not been to 20 countries and does not have the education he claims to have.
During the time the subject was in high school, his mother remembers that he worked at ACTA, and DRS. He said he would save money, and he worked full time and took night shifts as well.

The subject started the company XXXXXXXX and the interviewee thought it seemed to go well. The interviewee gave the subject and his partner an office and desks in the basement, but noted that the orders fell and they had to shut down.

After the subject moved to his own place, she is not quite sure what he was doing, but says: He was doing something else. Then he got a great idea, and said he would make «fake» diplomas for customers over the Internet. As she remembers it, he kept at this for two, three years and the business went well.

The interviewee says that she needed much assistance after 1995 and that the subject at times did great care tasks for me. He was incredibly kind and caring, she says. She says that this was the reason why the subject applied for and was granted a delay of military service. As far as she knows the delay was granted several times until he was eventually discharged.

The interviewee was asked if she knew that the subject at that time was politically involved in the Progress Party. I knew where he stood politically, she says, but there was no burning interest at the time and I did not hear that he was enrolled in any political party.

The interviewee said she had a boyfriend, XXXXX, from 1990 to 2005, with whom the subject had a good relationshi. The interviewee says she never heard anything wrong about it while the relationship lasted, but said: In recent years, Anders has become so strangely moralistic, has had a lot of ideas that there should be no sex outside of marriage and stuff. He was never like that before, she adds.

He was so kind, the interviewee says. He always thought of me. Right after he moved to himself, he went to Kristiansand and bought a puppy for me so I should not feel alone. He helped me with everything possible at the time and was unique, she says.

In 2002 the subject moved from the collective in XXXXXXXX to an apartment he rented alone in XXXXXXXX. The interviewee says he was still making diplomas, but there were problems because an American who also did it had caught him, would expose him, and then he had to stop doing it. It was great at first and he rented offices in Pilestredet and downtown. It went on until it collapsed.

The interviewee says she cleaned the subject’s flat against payment in the last years he lived in XXXXXXXX. The experts ask how this came about. Boys at that age are not very good at tidying and cleaning, so I offered myself, she says.

After the business with the fake diplomas was over, the interviewee knew that the subject was doing ‘boards» for a while. But there was great competition, she says and he had to stop doing that too. The interviewee says that the subject during the period he lived alone in the apartment in XXXXXXXX spent more and more time inside and was doing things that did not pay off.

The interviewee says that the subject had relationships with several girlfriends from he was 15 or 16 until he was 21 or 22. Not so long lasting, she says, but I did meet several of them. They were nice girls, she adds. As far as she knows, the subject has not had any girlfriends since 2001. I kept hoping, of course, but when I asked him, he said he was not ready to settle down, she says referring to the subject over the last decade.

The interviewee says that in 2006 it was she who suggested that the subject could move home to her. She is asked why. There was no success with anything, she says, and I thought it was good for him to stay home and save money.

During the first year the subject lived at home again, she experienced the subject as being very busy in front of the PC. He shut down his last firm, she says, it was declared bankrupt. The interviewee says she remembers it because a trustee came home to see them. As far as the interviewee knows, the subject had paid taxes and still had some money left when the firm was liquidated.

At that time he said he would take a few years off, says the interviewee about the subject. The interviewee says she was completely panicked and thought it was horrible. She asked the subject to contact NAV employment office to look for job opportunities. The subject asked her to stop nagging, however, and he never contacted the office.

The interviewee says the subject from 2006 to 2007 spent most of the time in his room. He played games on the computer, she says, and he wanted to lie in bed in the morning, but then I pulled him up.

In 2007, the interviewee says the subject announced that he would write a book. As she understood him, he started 600 years before Christ at the time to make sure the book would be complete. She says that she still saw him as polite and not changed, except that he isolated himself in his room.

The subject stated that he would write a history book in English. Over a period of several years the interviewee got the impression that the subject really got more and more into it. She saw her son’s involvement in writing as abnormal. She says: He was a normal boy, but in 2006 he changed and most of all he changed in 2010.

The interviewee says the subject became angry when he was disturbed, as when the interviewee knocked on the door. He was so absorbed by the computer, she says. The interviewee says that eventually she felt trapped with her son and that he became more and more intense.

As the interviewee understood the subject, he was writing a book that would be about Norway, Europe and the world view. He sometimes talked about the book, but the interviewee found him uncomfortably intense and eventually avoided all topics that could lead the conversation to politics.

He said later that I was a «little marxist» and «feminist «, the interviewee says. And he said I was for the Labour Party. But I have voted for the Progress Party, influenced by him.

Other things had also changed, she says. From 2010 he became completely weird. He said I could not sneeze and would not come into the living room to me. He was strict, strange and tended to complain about the food.

The interviewee says she does not quite remember when it started, but knows that subject eventually felt that he was not so good looking anymore. He began to talk about plastic surgery and getting new teeth.

In the Autumn of 2010, the subject said to the interviewee that the book he wrote was finished. He left, as far as she knows, to Germany, where he attempted to sell it at a book fair.

From the winter and spring of 2010 things went way too far, the interviewee says. He was lecturing me about politics. I thought it was just nonsense and madness and that this had to end. He was totally out there and believed in all the nonsense he was saying.

The interviewee is seldom able to give examples of how the subject was when he was intense, but says: I felt under pressure. The companionship and contact with him were changed. We used to have so much fun together and now it was just politics and negative things about me.

The interviewee continues: He was not able to keep a suitable distance from me anymore — either he would not come out or else he sat right next to me on my couch, oncing kisseing me on my cheek. It was so intense. I wondered if he could move out soon. I started to get annoyed over his behavior and he was constantly annoyed and angry. There were huge reactions to trifles.

The interviewee says that during the last year the subject lived at home, he was increasingly eager to avoid infection. He would not talk to me, the interviewee says. And he accused me of talking to too many people who could infect us. He would not come into the kitchen and he ate his meals in his room. He handed me the plates through the door. And I remember that he held his hands over his face, for a period he also used a face mask indoors.

The interviewee says she more and more often thought that her son had become very strange and uncomfortable. When asked, however, she says that she never thought that he had become ill. I excused him and thought things would soon be better, she says.

In the autumn of 2010, the interviewee noticed that the subject had purchased what she describes as a bulletproof suitcase. It was incredibly weird, she says, and I asked him what he wanted to do with it. In case somebody breaks into the car, he said. The interviewee says the subject repeatedly stated that he was afraid somebody would break into his car.

In addition, there were many things in his room I was not sure about. He bought a shotgun which he kept in his room and ordered a rifle. And in early 2011 he bought a big black gun. The interviewee says she did not like this and told the subject he could not stay at home with so much weaponry.

The interviewee says the subject repeatedly donned what he called survival gear. Black and green clothes. When she asked, he said that it had to do with getting a hunter’s license, but the interviewee thought this was strange.

The interviewee says the subject often wanted to talk about an impending civil war during the last year, but that the interviewee could not stand this. He spoke loudly and intensely, she says, and it was really uncomfortable. I tried everything I could to avoid those issues.

The interviewee says she noticed right before Christimas in 2010 that there were a lot of mail shipments to the subject. Two black bags heavy as lead arrived, she says, and I was really surprised. He filled the storage room in the basement with strange things, too, she says. In the spring of 2010 I found two backpacks filled with rocks inside the door and four huge bins with lids behind them. The interviewee says the subject became angry and grumpy when she asked what he wanted to do with all the equipment.

In the spring of 2011, the mother remembers the subject one day came out of his room wearing a red uniform jacket with lots of badges. The interviewee says that her son looked very strange and that she thought now I give up, he is doing so many strange things.

The experts asks if the interviewee at any time suspected that her son was ill, or the he had changed in ways she did not understand. Constantly since 2006, she says, but above all from the spring of 2010. He has been living in a fantasy world, with all that he has never managed to achieve. He talked about Christian IV, generals and stuff, and I could not keep up.

I did ask myself whether he was going completely mad, she says, and it became a major discomfort, disgusting, and it felt unsafe. As if I did not know him anymore. So I thought there must be something wrong with his head.

The interviewee says the subject started exercising after January of 2011, but that it seemed completely excessive, totally Rambo. He said he took some protein powder and bought dietary supplements that he kept in black bags in his room. He went to the gym, but otherwise he almost never went out.

In April 2011, he suddenly said he wanted to become a farmer, the interviewee says about the subject. He had signed a contract, and would rent a farm with 23 acres of farmland. The interviewee says she was surprised that he would become a farmer, but was glad that he finally found something to do and moved out of her apartment.

On May 7 he rented a car and brought his stuff to the farm at Rena, the interviewee says. She was looking forward to visit him, but there was never a suitable moment. He said he was tired and that there were a lot of stones se he had to grow timothy-grass, the interviewee says.

The interviewee met the subject in Oslo on June 2, 2011. Again she did not receive confirmation that she could visit the farm. The subject was then in contact with her by phone several times before he came to her home the night before the criminal acts. He lied and deceived me, she says, crying.

The interviewee denies that she ever experienced the subject as depressed or sad. She never thought that he seemed excited.

She has never heard him talking loudly to himself. She commented that the subject in periods had the sound on the PC on very loud, but he turned it down when I asked him to.

When asked, however, she says that the subject, after moving to Rena in the beginning of May 2011, talked a lot about sounds. He was very passionate about it, she said. Talked about squeaks and unpleasant sounds on the farm. He also said he was afraid his liver would fail and I did not understand anything of that.

The interviewee also says that the subject was completely fixated on spiders after he moved to the farm. He said spiders came crawling out of the walls, she says, and that it was a spider hell up there. He talked about beetles, spiders and other critters and seemed agitated when he talked about it.

The interviewee says she in a telephone conversation with the subject, probably in June 2011, was told by him that there had been an undercover agent who wanted to take pictures in his yard. She thought the story sounded strange.

The interviewee says in conclusion that when she looks back, she thinks that the subject must have been insane. Considering how different he became. She cries and says: You do not believe that such things can happen, I still don’t quite believe it.

5.2 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The experts have tried to get in touch with his closest childhood friend in order to have a detailed conversation with him. He works at XXXXXXXX, but has not responded to phone calls or messages left on his phone. The experts have therefore been unable to obtain information beyond the witness statement.

5. The subject’s background and testimony

The conversation structure:
When the experts were to start conversations with him, the circumstances were carefully discussed with Ila prison. On behalf of Ila, prison governor Bjarkeid wanted us to make observations through a glass wall. We could not accept this and therefore we were allowed to sit with him in the same room, but with guards present. Ila wanted the conversations to take place in company for safety reasons, fearing hostage situations otherwise, especially regarding the female expert. The experts decided that for many reasons we found it both necessary, advisable and inevitable that the conversations took place with both experts present. This was not an assessment based on the resource situation only (although it took a significant amount of resources to organize the meetings regarding staffing and rooms, etc.) but because we after two meetings realized that we neither intellectually nor emotionally would be able to carry out one-on-one talks. It was a very demanding situation to be in conversation with him and it was necessary for us to switch the focus between actor and observer to be able to carry it out with quality over time. It was also very difficult to stay focused and of vital importance that we could structure this together. It was thus an active professional assessment that the results of the assessment this way would be better as we could talk and observe and complement each other.

We prepared for each meeting independently but based on the agreed topics and could thus reflect on each topic separately.

5.1. The first interview with both experts on 10 August 2011.

Introductory remarks
The first conversation with the subject took place at Ila prison and detention center, where the subject is in custody. The experts met as by appointment and were, as stated above, taken to one of two adjacent rooms, separated by a wall with a window. For security reasons, the prison had decided that the subject was to be placed in one room and the experts in the other.The sound between the rooms was to be transmitted via a PA system.

The experts found this unacceptable and on the basis of professional considerations related to the quality of the forensic psychiatric study, we asked that the decision be changed. This was granted. After an hour of reorganization, the experts met the subject in a large room. There were three conference tables between the experts and the subject, and two prison guards were present during the conversation. The subject showed up in transportation belts with his right hand free. He brought with him a small note and some blank paper.

The conversation lasted for nearly three hours.

The subject shook hands with the experts and was smiling at the beginning of the conversation. He says that he is not informed of the experts’ arrival and that he has not discussed aspects of the forensic psychiatric examination with his lawyer. He is wearing a striped sweater of the brand Lacoste, is well groomed and with a direct, somewhat staring look.

Briefing of the subject
The subject was initially explained the formal aspects of the forensic psychiatric observation. He was informed of the experts’ function for the court and that the experts are not subject to the same confidentiality that normally applies to physicians. He was informed that the experts only investigates information relevant to the assessment of his health condition during the observation period and at the time of the criminal acts, including the risk of future violence. He was also informed that the experts are not investigating the facts of the case, nor assessing the question of guilt.

The subject expressed his understanding and acceptance of this, but did not appear appear significantly interested in these matters. He said however immediately that he assumed that all forensic psychiatrists in the world envied the experts the task of evaluating him. He said with a smile: Of course I know the procedure. The experts asked why he smiled at this. The subject answered: I never thought I would even hear it being said. I know psychology very well. Have studied it for several years. Have worked in sales, it’s the best way.

He then quickly states that he has seven questions the experts have to answer if he is to cooperate in the investigation. He was asked about the background for the need to ask questions to the experts and elaborated: I do not want to contribute to my own character assassination. Multiculturalists see the experts as politically correct. It’s like the psychiatrists after World War II. Ideological bias has the individuals as their lackeys.

The experts explained that answering questions of a personal nature is not compatible with the role of an expert in a criminal case. The subject disagreed completely and said he would find it difficult to cooperate in the investigation if he did not hear the experts’ world view. He said: If you are ideologically on the left, you are biased. He repeated that after the Second World War, dozens of anti-communists were imprisoned.

The experts tried using multiple approaches to reject the subject’s requirements for interviewing the experts before we could proceed. The subject was not responsive to arguments. He continued to mention examples of what happened in Norway after World War II. He mentioned players such as Hamsun, National Samling, Labor and the forced resignation of the Minister of Justice. It was difficult, at times impossible, to follow him and a number of times the experts had to ask him to clarify.

It emerged that the subject believed that he is a threat to the current regime. He added: The powers are oriented in a Marxist direction and after the war they sent the Minister of Justice to the mental asylum. The subject believes that the example is a direct parallel to his own situation.

The subject then started to define our political opponents. He explained that cultural marxists, such as the political parties Rødt and SV, make up 30% of our opponents. Suicidal marxists, the political parties Venstre and Høyre, constitute 65%. This includes the liberalists and they do it because of naiveté. And then we have the global capitalists, they make up about 5%.

The experts asks the subject what questions he wants answered. He looks at a little note he had brought with him and says: There are seven questions. The first one is: What do you think about Hamsun and the justice minister’s forced resignation after the Second World War? The second is: Do you think all national darwinists are psychopaths?

The experts stop the subject and ask for an explanation of the term national darwinist. The subject makes references to the 20’s, and says: The term national darwinist has been used before, in the 20’s, it was a big part of the UK’s way of thinking.

The experts say they are confused about the subject’s terminology. The subject elaborates: A darwinist is a pragmatist. With logical cynicism with regards to political decisions. A political problem can have two approaches, men are pragmatical, logical, while women use emotions to solve the problem. Darwinism looks at man from an animal’s perspective, and act from a dog’s eyes.

The subject goes on to say: One example is when the Americans nuked Japan. They used a pragmatic approach. Better to kill 300 000, but save millions. We believe it is suicidal humanitarianism. The experts want to know who the subject is referring to when he uses the pronoun we. The subject smiles and says: We are the Knights Templar. When asked by the experts, the subject says that he himself has created the concept of suicidal humanitarianism. He adds: There are many vacuums within political analysis, and the term is meant to fill a void.

The experts ask the subject to continue with the series of questions. He says: Question number three is whether you experts believe that the U.S. military command lacks empathy. Question number four: Explain the essential differences between pragmatism and sociopathy. The experts ask what the subject means with the word sociopathy. The subject smiles and says: Isn’t it the same as psychopathy, then?

The subject says that the next questions are of a more personal nature. Question number five: Are you nationalists or internationalists? Number six: Do you support multiculturalism? Number seven: Have any of you had associations with Marxist organizations in your lifetime?

One expert asks how the subject would determine whether we were speaking the truth, if we had answered the questions. The subject smiles, and says: I already know. Thousands of hours of sales has enabled me to predict with 70% probability what the person I’m talking to thinks. So I know that none of you are Marxist-oriented, but both are politically correct, and support multiculturalism. I can not expect more.

The experts ask if the subject guesses or knows what others think. I know, says the subject, that is a big difference.

The subject says that he has read a lot of psychology. He explains: I am accredited 15-16000 hours of study, the equivalent of 9 years of studies. I can differentiate between east-enders and west-enders and assess that by looking at the clothes, make-up, watches and other small details to determine where in Oslo people come from.

The subject says he will accept the experts and concludes by saying: I think I’ve been lucky.

The experts then requests the subject’s consent to collect health information about him from the organizations where he might have received treatment. It appears that, beyond a few contacts with his general practitioner, he has not received treatment, neither from physical nor mental health services.

He agrees that information may be collected about him from XXXXXXXX, which he, without being sure, assumes is the name of the center where he has his family doctor. He says he has consulted his doctor just a few times in recent years because of issues related to difficulty falling asleep, pollen allergy and minor infections. Other than that, he says he has been healthy.

The experts inform the subject that they will look into his family, upbringing and early childhood together with him. He is willing to contribute to this. He is in this part of the conversation generally accurate, but somewhat hesitant and not very enthusiastic. He explains himself distantly, using a formal language, even about personal matters. He speaks coherently and is not visibly tired. In the following, the subject’s own information is reproduced as it was given to the experts.

About his background and family, the subject says that he was born in Oslo, at Aker Hospital. He lived in London for his first year, where his father XXXXXXXXXXXXX. After that he has been living in Oslo. He has a half sister, XXXXXXXX, born in 1973, whom he grew up with.

The subject’s parents were married, but were later separated XXXXXXXXXX. His mother, sister XXXXXXXX, and the subject moved back to an apartment his father owned XXXXXXXXX in Oslo.

The subject says he was first looked after at home by his mother, but that he started in Vigelandsparken kindergarten when his mother started working. He is not sure how old he may have been then, but thinks he was three or four years old when he started kindergarten. He remembers the time in kindergarten as good and mentions that he had a best friend there, XXXXXX.

The subject has never lived permanently with his father. He knows that there was disagreement about where he should live when he was very young and has been told that there was litigation about the care, an issue his mother won. After the divorce, a few years followed where he did not meet his father at all. Later, he visited his father and his new wife during holidays.

About his mother, […]

The subject’s mother was alone with his sister before she met the subject’s father at a gathering of common acquaintances. The subject says: Morally, I do not support. I am not a fan of more than one marriage. Apart from that, he says about his mother: She has been hard-working and has done a good job with XXXXXXXX and me.

In a period from the subject was 12 to 24 years old, his mother had a boyfriend, but the couple never lived together and never married. The subject thinks it was his mother who ended the relationship. The subject says: XXXXXXXX was kind and nice, sort of a substitute father, he worked XXXXXXXX. He moved to XXXXXXXX after it was over with Mom. The experts ask if the subject has had any contact with XXXXXXXX after the relationship with his mother ended. He replies: No. In those phases I had to prioritize financial contacts and business contacts higher than XXXXXXXX.

About his father, […]

[…] then lived several years in Oslo. As the subject understands it, his father met his first wife, XXXXX, in this period. His father had three children with her, all of which are the subject’s half siblings.


The subject says he has had sporadic contact with all his three half-siblings through his childhood, but has never lived together with any of them. […] In the period from the subject was six to 14 years old, he traveled twelve times to visit his father in France. There he also met XXXXXXXX. He says that he in recent years have largely met his half-siblings on his father’s side in Norway in connection with a joint dinner during the Christmas celebration.


The subject’s parents were married for a short period around the time of his birth. After the subject’s father divorced his mother, he married his third wife, XXXXXXXX, who the subject describes as his stepmother. […] The subject says that his stepmother helped his father to have contact with the children because the father himself was not socially adapt. The father and XXXXXXXX divorced when the subject was 14 or 15 years old. […]

[…] The subject says he appreciated the step-mother and has had regular contact with her also after the divorce. The subject says that the stepmother was employed as XXXXXXXX after the divorce from his father, […].

The subject’s father XXXXXXXX married his fourth wife, XXXXXXXXX. The subject says that after he turned 16, he has not had regular contact with his father and thinks this is possibly due to the father being unable to forgive an episode where the subject was arrested for tagging. He also believes that from the same age, there were conflicts because the father would not pay a parental contribution to his mother, but he does not know more about this.

[…] He has no further information on the father’s life after all contact between them was broken when the subject was 22 years old.

About his sister XXXXX, the subject says that he has lived with the six-year older half-sister throughout his childhood. Because the age difference between them was so great, they did not have so much to do with each other before they grew up some more. The subject says: She had her mother for herself for six years, so it was probably a transition when I arrived.

The subject says that there was never any trouble with XXXXXXXX when growing up, that he knows about. […]


The subject started in Vigelandsparken kindergarten when his mother started working. He is not sure how old he may have been then, but thinks he must have been two or three years. He remembers the time there as nice and remembers that he had a best friend. The family consisting of him, his sister XXXXXXXX and his mother, lived in his father’s apartment XXXXXXXX in Oslo until his mother bought an apartment at XXXXXXXX when he was five or six years old. He continued in the same kindergarten until he started school.

The subject does not know about anyone in his family having had or having a mental illness of any kind. When asked, he denies that anyone in his family have ended their lives by suicide, or attempted to do so. He denies having tried to commit suicide himself, or wanting do it now.

Current status by both experts on 10 August 2011
The subject is awake, in clear consciousness, and aware of time and place and situation. Intelligence clinically evaluated to be in the normal range. The subject uses numerical values and percentages to a greater extent than is common in regular speech. He uses a technical, unemotional and not very dynamic language in the conversation.

He appears emotionally shallow, with complete emotional distance to his own situation and to the experts. He is polite and cooperates to the best of his ability. He laughs and smiles quite often, related to issues surrounding his own individual significance and/or his actions.

The subject has lightly glaring eyes and blinks a lot. He appears with a somewhat reduced facial expression and a somewhat rigid body language as he moves very little in the chair during the hours of the conversation.

The subject believes he knows the thoughts of people he is talking to. The phenomenon is considered to be psychotically based, despite the fact that the subject explains he has learned the technique through thousands of hours of sale.

The subject believes he is in a position to set conditions for the experts’ discussions with him. He portrays himself as unique and a focal point for everything that happens, as he believes that all the psychiatrists in the world envy the experts their assignment. He compares his situation with the treason settlement after the war. The phenomena are considered to be an expression of grandiose ideas.

The subject appears to have an unclear identity feeling, as he switches between describing himself in the singular and plural.

The subject uses words he points he has constructed himself, such as national darwinist, suicidal Marxist and suicidal humanitarianism. The phenomenon is considered to be neologisms.

The experts have initially had difficulty in following the subject. In the part of the conversation in which he presents himself, he exhibits his political message and his mission with a slight association disorder and formal thought disorder in the form of perseveration. As the conversation changes topic to biographical information gathering, this is less pronounced but still present, as the subject at a number of occasions drifts from the subject and must be brought back with a question. There is no latency or thought block during the conversation.

The subject appears without depressive ideas in the form of guilt, shame, hopelessness or thoughts about death. He denies experiencing sadness, joylessness , reduced initiative or lack of initiative. There is thus no evidence of depressed mood.

The subject does not exhibit increased psychomotorical tempo or perceived high mood. The subject’s speech is coherent and with normal syntax. He has no mind or voice strain. He is affect stable. There is no indication of lack of impulse control, either verbally or physically. There is thus no evidence of a high mood.

The subject denies having suicidal thoughts or plans.

The subject appeared without objective evidence of auditory hallucinations. He was not questioned about sensory disturbances. The occurrence of hallucinosis could consequently not be assessed with any quality.

5.2 Second interview by both experts on 12 August 2011

The experts meet the subject, like the last time, in a large room at Ila prison and detention center. The visit was approved by the Norwegian Correctional Services to take place without the use of a glass wall between the subject and the experts. As in the first meeting, there were three conference tables between the experts and the subject and two prison guards were present during the conversation. The subject met in transportation belts, with his right hand free.

The conversation lasted about two and a half hours.

The subject is asked to tell us more about his childhood and says that he went to Vigelandsparken kindergarten until he started school. When asked, he says that he does not know of any concerns about his behavior or development during the time in kindergarten.

He asked if he knows whether there was any evaluation by him at the National Center for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. The subject replies that he knows that there was a court case regarding the custody of him between his mother and father, but does not know that there were concerns related to his situation or functioning in that regard.

About his schooling the subject says that he started at Smedstad school at the usual age. He remembers the name of his teacher, and says: Everything was normal until the 5th or 6th grade. Was a favorite of the teachers. Was among the three best in his class, and progressed quickly through the curriculum. Was smart. He confirms to have had friends, and believes that they were four or five who kept together.

From when he was 11, the subject got closer to the friends XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX. He also became close friends with XXXXXXX, a Muslim neighbor in the housing cooperative in which he lived. The subject says: From that age, it became more about forming alliances, to secure a social position. I was a leader from the 3rd class, both intellectually, in ball games, and games like Nintendo. Was among the very best both academically and socially. Asked to elaborate, he explains: Was among the best form to relationships with others, there were several leading figures, but I was the glue in the gang.

The subject says: New groups gradually evolved and things got to be more Darwinian-minded. Alliances that eventually were built happened because of my «efforts». But I was not the figurehead. Asked about what put him in this role, he explains that it was due to his excellent communication skills.

The subject denies that there were concerns during the time at Smedstad school about his social, academic or behavioral development.

The subject started at Ris Junior High School in the 7th grade. He believes that friendship with XXXXXXXX at this time was bad news and affected him negatively. He said: The school and the teachers were good, but I got into the Hip-Hop environment at school, it was the climax of my rebellious period. We tagged. We did not respect the teachers decisions. The subject says that today, it is pathetic to think about the fact that he acted tough to impress losers. The subject adds that the Hip-Hop-environment is a fundamentally anti-authoritarian and liberal culture, with a direct line to robbers and murderers. It is idealized gangster mentality.

The subject says he was caught tagging on two occasions. The first time was in 1994, when he and two friends tagged at the bus station in Skøyen. This was reported to the police. He was also caught a year later, aged 16, by a railroad underpass at Storo. The incident was filmed by a security company, and reported to the police. The subject says that he realized how serious this was after having a conversation with the police. He decided to stop tagging.

As a consequence of breaking up with his former environment at Ris School, he was no longer friends with XXXXXXXX overnight. He adds: I was also the glue in Hip-Hop gang and XXXXXXXX looked at me as a threat. He was hateful and bitter and took over my network. Had to leave the community in disgrace. When asked how this happened, the subject is unable to give concrete examples.

The subject adds: You learn to be civilized in junior high. It is a sensitive period. Kids are mean and cynical. And the civilizing project begins in junior high. It’s evolution.

The subject says he after this decided to focus more on school. He adds: If I had given it my best, I would have received almost exclusively top grades. But because of the social belonging and an episode where I hit a teacher in the chest, my grades suffered. He believes to remember that he left the school with five Mg, and four G grades.

The subject is asked to tell us what would make him fit to receive special good grades if he had focused on school. He explains: There are hereditary conditions, of course. And what you focus on, you succeed in. The curriculum was easy and I had very good results at school. I could still have been exceptional with a better effort. Lots and lots of top grades, anyway.

The subject applied, and was accepted at Hartvig Nissen high school after completing junior high. He says: It was a huge success socially, but I struggled to catch up with the academics. I attracted many more, met many people who wanted to build networks. The subject does not remember the results of the 1st year of high school, but says: It went well. But people were a bit frivolous and it was a bad academic environment.

The subject says that he was a socially dominant figure in this period and is sure he is remembered in a very positive way from this period. He decided that he would change schools and says: Did not want the liberal teachers from Hartvig Nissen. Wanted discipline, conservative teachers. He therefore started 2. grade at Oslo Handelsgym, general studies. He adds: High School is more civilized.

The experts ask why he uses words such as networking, evolution and civilization when he talks about his own schooling. He says: It is the result of psychology studies. He believes he started studying psychological literature in his early twenties.

When asked to talk about his further education, he says: It was as expected. Tough, and there were cliques then already. Chose to focus on friends from Hartvig Nissen. The subject says he was not a leadership figure at Oslo Handelsgym. He did, however, make some new friends, including XXXXXXXX, whom he says has been his best friend since. He adds, laughingly: At least up to July 22.

The subject says he worked hard at school. He believes he covered the whole curriculum for the second grade in six months and got bored when he started in the 3rd grade. He left school in December 1998. Prior to this the school had reported that he had to improve his attendance. The experts ask what he now thinks about not completing high school. He says: It was an ambitious decision. Had decided that I would never have a boss, I would get rich and start my own company.

The subject has not completed any formal education after this.

About his professional experience, the subject explains that he started at Acta Marketing at the beginning of high school. His job was to book meetings for people with assets over a certain size. They bought lists with phone numbers of people who had more than 500,000 in assets.

He got the job, 17 years old, by a girl he met at the Tusenfryd amusement park. She got me an appointment with her father and he set up a meeting with Acta. The management evaluated my rhetorical skills. I got much better results than 7 years older students. The subject smiles. I quickly became an employee representative in Acta. It can be verified. I was exceptionally good and would raise millions for the business.

The subject says he worked about a year for Acta Dialogue Marketing. He says he quit because he wanted new challenges and had learned all he could learn there. He began as part-time employee in Direct Response Center (DRS) in the middle of the second grade. He did customer service and direct support. As an example of the work he performed at DRS, he mentions calling people on a list in connection with the sale of Mc Music CDs and Riverton book club.

In the autumn of 1998, while he was still a student at Oslo Handelsgym, the subject also had an extra job at Telia. Parallel to this, he started his own company. […] He quit school, and says: I worked back-office from home. The concept was brilliant. While I worked for Telia and was well regarded, I had access to a database of foreigners in Norway. It was A-priority customers, the heaviest customers. I copied the entire database and so we were to call the customers and offer them cheaper calls.

The subject says that the company had thousands of customers, but a conflict developed between me and my partner, XXXXXXXX. He was incompetent. We shut down after one year, it was «break-even.» It was a failure. The subject can not explain specifically what caused the business idea to fail, but says: I learned a lot. When asked to explain what, he says: Do not start a company with people you know. And not without sales experience, psychology and administrative experience.

The subject was asked how he acquired capital for the firm. Needed a minimum of money, he said. We had an office in the basement at home. He adds: I had accumulated 100,000 in 1996 from small jobs and saving hard. Had been watching the stock market since I was 15 and analyzed an IT company when I was 17. Put all my money in options in the company, but the market collapsed in 1996 and I lost everything in a month and 10 days.

The experts ask how it felt for a young boy first to lose so much money and then to shut down his fledgling company. The subject says: Most people say that success must go through several rounds of failed projects, so that was positive in the long term. I worked even harder to build up seed capital again. When you are aiming for a goal, you bang your head against the wall until the wall or your head breaks. Must suffer when you have ambitious goals.

The subject adds: If you know the great financial successes within the visionary directions, one sees such things as ordeals and hardening processes. I got hardened and balanced and this provided a good foundation to become a very good leader. And I learned that I did not have enough knowledge of business and psychology and had to start reading.

The subject explains that he joined DRS again when he was 19 years old. He says: I advanced. Besides the work, he began to study. He studied various subjects, and bought books online at He says: In two or three years I though about formalizing and accrediting my education. You only need to pass exams in Norwegian, history and social sciences to get a high school diploma after the age of 20. But I let it slide, and so I eventually decided to be ordinated in the Knights Templar instead.

The subject says that totally he has accredited a total of 96,000 study hours while I worked, in addition to writing. Have been working really hard.

About being called in for military service, the subject says that he first received it while he was running his company XXXXXXXX in 1998 and 1999. At this time, his mother was seriously ill and he used caring for her as a reason in an application for delay. After several years of correspondence, he was finally dismissed in 2003. He says he regrets this in retrospect. It would have provided a good knowledge of warfare. Would love to have it. Perhaps the world could have been changed then.

About relationships and girlfriends the subject says that he had several girlfriends from 16 years of age. Not much long-term relationships, maximum six months. There were some girls on Tåsen, around the Berg neighborhood. The subject then begins to speak of other people, key people for him in this environment. The experts ask him again to tell about his girlfriends and the subject says: XXXXXXXX was the name. And I dated XXXXXXXX. And I do not remember the details but got to know XXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXX it came to dating with them, too. The subject thinks he took at least one of them home on a visit to his mother and that he had his first sexual intercourse during this period.

He denies ever having had sexual experiences with boys or men. He says: The last ten years there has been no opportunity for relationships, due to the ordaining of the Knights Templar. I have not been sexually active after 22 years of age. I regard the body as a temple and will instead focus on long-term relationships.

The conversation is ended, and it is agreed that his employments after he finished, shall be reviewed at a later date.

Status 12/8/11 by both experts
The subject is awake, in clear consciousness and aware of time and place and situation. Intelligence clinically assessed to be in the normal range. He uses a technical, non-emotional and not very dynamic language in the conversation, as he describes his upbringing and childhood in terms of networking, alliances, social position, civilization and evolution.

He appears emotionally shallow, with complete emotional distance to his own situation and to the experts. He is polite and cooperates to the best of his ability. He laughs and smiles quite often, when related to issues surrounding his own individual significance and/or his actions.

The subject has a light glaring look and blinks a lot. He appears with a somewhat reduced facial expression and a somewhat rigid body language as he moves very little in the chair during the hours the conversation lasts.

The subject describes himself through adolescence as having very good communication skills, as a huge success socially, a leader, socially dominant figure, with exceptional skills in the extra work he had in addition to high school. The phenomena are considered as expressions of delusions of grandeur.

The subject uses through the conversation some words in unusual ways, as he talks about the accreditation of education, youth as a civilization project and quitting high school as an ambitious decision.

The subject leaves the topic on several occasions and must be brought back with questions. The phenomenon is understood as a slight association disorder and formal thought disorder in the form of perseveration. There is no latency or thought block during the conversation.

The subject appears without depressive ideas in the form of guilt, shame, hopelessness or thoughts about death. He denies experiencing sadness, joylessness, reduced initiative or lack of initiative. There is thus no evidence of a depressed mood.

The subject exhibits no increased psychomotor activity or perceived high mood. The subject’s speech is coherent and with normal syntax. He has no mind – or voice strain. He is «affektstabil». There is no evidence of lack of impulse control, either verbally or physically. There is thus no evidence of a high mood.

The subject denies having suicidal thoughts or plans.

The subject appeared without objective evidence of auditory hallucinations. He was not questioned about sensory disturbances. The occurrence of hallucinosis could consequently not be assessed with any quality.


Vi i Document ønsker å legge til rette for en interessant og høvisk debatt om sakene som vi skriver om. Vennligst les våre retningslinjer for debattskikk før du deltar.