KT Court Records: Oslo District Court Trial:
31 May 2012: Day 28: Police Investigation & Experts:
31 May 2012: Breivik Trial: Day 28: Police Investigation & Experts Trial Transcript: VG (PDF)
National Public Health Institute: Executive Director of Forensic Toxicology and Drug Abuse: Prof. Jørg Mørland | KRIPOS: Interrogator: Geir Egil Løken
Holocaust Center Historian: Terje Emberland | Professor Tore Bjørgo (Right wing violence ideologies and terrorist rationality) | Eurofascist Author & Researcher on Right Wing Extremism: Øyvind Stromme |
31 May 2012: Day 28: Transcript: VG:
Comments from VG Jarle Brenna:
Today the court has given permission for that part of the presentation of evidence can be transferred directly to the TV, and we will send back VGTV from the courtroom. Many have been critical of how the court has accepted that some witnesses are transferred, while others cut off. Unfortunately we have no choice but to deal with the new decision the court made Friday: Read how the right argument here. day starts at right. 09.00
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Psalm 250 is about to fill up, and both defending team, the experts and the prosecutors are in place. As of yesterday, there is a clear majority of journalists belonging to the squares, and there are very many empty seats. Anders Breivik Behring came smiling into the room 250 in the day. He speaks quietly to his defenders while arrestforvareren remove his handcuffs. He then takes place between defenders Bæra and Lippestad. Judges has arrived and the prosecutor Svein Holden comes with some comments on today's program. All the expert witnesses who will testify in court today, broadcast, and you can see their explanation directly on VGTV . The first witness is the Jørg Morland of Public Health, which has now taken the witness stand to give insurance.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:
- Do you have current program prosecutor. [Holden says that Jørg Morland will testify Breivik's health, after him comes Geir onion that is interviewing and interrogation made by the defendant. Then, the following three witnesses testify: historian and senior researcher Terje Emberland, Professor Tore Bjørgo who has studied terrorism, prevention and right extremes. The final witness is a journalist Øyvind Stream as an expert on right-wing extremist websites including pages Breivik have used.] All expert witnesses can be broadcast.
Today the court has given permission for that part of the presentation of evidence can be transferred directly to the TV, and we will send back VGTV from the courtroom. Many have been critical of how the court has accepted that some witnesses are transferred, while others cut off. Unfortunately we have no choice but to deal with the new decision the court made Friday: Read how the right argument here. day starts at right. 09.00
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Psalm 250 is about to fill up, and both defending team, the experts and the prosecutors are in place. As of yesterday, there is a clear majority of journalists belonging to the squares, and there are very many empty seats. Anders Breivik Behring came smiling into the room 250 in the day. He speaks quietly to his defenders while arrestforvareren remove his handcuffs. He then takes place between defenders Bæra and Lippestad. Judges has arrived and the prosecutor Svein Holden comes with some comments on today's program. All the expert witnesses who will testify in court today, broadcast, and you can see their explanation directly on VGTV . The first witness is the Jørg Morland of Public Health, which has now taken the witness stand to give insurance.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:
- Do you have current program prosecutor. [Holden says that Jørg Morland will testify Breivik's health, after him comes Geir onion that is interviewing and interrogation made by the defendant. Then, the following three witnesses testify: historian and senior researcher Terje Emberland, Professor Tore Bjørgo who has studied terrorism, prevention and right extremes. The final witness is a journalist Øyvind Stream as an expert on right-wing extremist websites including pages Breivik have used.] All expert witnesses can be broadcast.
09:08: Nat Public Health Inst: Exec. Dir. of Forensic Toxicology and Drug Abuse: Prof. Jorg Morland:
9:08 Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- [Jørg Morland is an expert on the toxicology department and shall deliver its opinion on whether Breivik was affected by drugs 22 July.] [Judge Arntzen: - I understand that you initially set Breivik any questions?] That's right.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
The sound does not work at the transfer before the courts. The court must therefore take a ten minute break so that the sound is fixed. It is concerned in this matter all over Norway, so the trial transferred to 17 things dishes around the country.
09:09: VG: - There is now a ten-minute break in court, because of technical problems with sound transfer to other court venues in the country. The court is back at approx. 09.17.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
It is expected that the court should start up again 09.15. During the break there is loud talking in the hall 250 Prosecutors Svein Holden talks to the experts, and many of the journalists are talking together. Breivik are normally taken out of the hall in connection with the break.
9:19: VG: - When the court sat again.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Morland will ask Breivik some spørsmål.Han wonder if Breivik used so-called ECA stack on July 22, which confirms Breivik. He claims he spent three times as much as is allowed in the EU. He took one capsule in the morning. mass killing man says that he had used the ECA stack about five times before July 22 in order to accustom the body to medicine. Morland works at the Institute of Public Health and was asked by the Oslo police to investigate whether Breivik was intoxicated during the terrorist attacks .
09:25: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- Did you use the drug ECA Stack that day? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Yes, that's right. I had it myself, using three ingredients. The doses were perhaps 50 percent larger than a commercial dose. Therefore I refer to the legal dose sold in the EU.] When did you dose 22 July? [Anders Breivik Behring: - I think I took the 12.30, so it was then absorbed approximately 12.50.] It was the last dose? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Right.] What form did it in? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Capsule.] One capsule? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Right.] How many days did you have used this prior to 22 July? [Anders Breivik Behring - I had taken it in respect to the body grows used. In this connection, I used it maybe five times about two weeks before, to turn the body of chemicals.] So you had taken it for two weeks and then a pause and then took it again?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik was examined and had to give blood and urine at 1:50 am on 23 last July. The hair samples were also taken from him, because hair can be used to map the use of substances over a longer period.
09:26: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- [Breivik: - Yes, that is. There were maybe two or three days ago I had taken a capsule prior to 22 July.] - That's fine, then I have in essence been answered what I was going. - Just briefly about the background so when I received this mandate from the Oslo Police to investigate whether there were effects on work time, and how extensive it possibly was. What I knew was that the defendant had used anabolic steroids. Thurs preparations. So we've heard now that the ECA stack has been used at times, and last around 12:00 deed the day. We can count on complete absorption from about 13:00 on the day. - There was blood and urine that night he was arrested. The doctor found a few things, and found approx. 1:30 Breivik that were affected. It could be caused by drugs or mental stress.
09:29: Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Morland sits in the witness box with his arm resting on the edge of the witness box as he presents the findings in the samples that were taken by Breivik. As an experienced toxicologist, he explained in court many times before.
09:29: Witness, Professor Jørg Morland:
- So also was a clinical forensic medical examination by Per Hoff-Olsen, as was also taken hair samples of Breivik and new hair samples of 31 august. They tell something about the history of the use of drugs in the past. It is part eventually in cases where one wishes to identify foreign substances in the past. What we found in the different samples were ephedrine, caffeine and a substance is a conversion of the drug nicotine. So we have made discoveries in the urine of ephedrine and of a transformation product of steroids.
09:31: Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Morland says that high doses of ephedrine may cause confusion, virkelighetsforvrengninger and paranoid ideas, but only as long as the substance found in the body. For years, however, extensive use of ephedrine trigger a psychosis-like state similar to schizophrenia, says Morland. Breivik rubbing his eyes as he listens to Morland explanation. He also shows no reaction to the toxicologists explains.
09:31: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- The samples were sent to a special laboratory in Dresden, Germany. And it was found that substances Breivik said he had used. These findings were consistent with the explanation of Breivik had given about the use of steroioder. (...) It is used to expand the airways in the lungs and is used in the treatment of bronchitis and used a little bit still. But it has a central nervous stimulant effects, such as amphetamines. The amphetamines light. It provides blood pressure, can cause intoxication, with russymptomer: Increased confidence, increased risk-taking and reduced critical sense. There have also been findings indicating that increases the risk of violence. Ephedrine can cause sanseforvrengninger and paranoid sensations. They have no basis in reality. This is also the cocaine. (....) - When they are due to a single intake as are the effects short-lived and often disappear hours after intake. So it has been mentioned in the literature that taking a long time can trigger psychosis. There are not many cases have been reported. Around 50 in the world literature in total. It is through the intake of 2-300 mg per day. - Caffeine should I talk so far about. There is also the active ingredient in coffee. It provides an easy central nervous stimulant effect, too. Measure the level of coffee drinkers as there are often 5 to 10 mikromål per liter of blood. Caffeine in the blood are halved in a matter of hours. - I will take a little bit about anabolic steroids.
09:33: Witness, Professor Jørg Morland:
- Anabolic steroids, which he tried to take away the testosterone effect. They are not used much in medicine anymore, but primarily to improve physical performance, not just in sports. It works in training to increase muscle mass. It has been argued that it increases the risk of violence by users. [Morland explains about a study done on the topic] As of 2004 it was found that the studies could not demonstrate convincingly that it was associated aggression and violence. It concluded yet with - according to the clinical studies had used higher doses - its use in some individuals could trigger mental disorders like elation and sometimes aggression.
09:34: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- There are many observational studies in the field where one measures the substance that is present in violent, for example. They are often difficult to interpret, partly because there may be other drugs in the body. Then there are caffeine and effedrin. What I have focused on in my analysis, is how much there was of these substances in Breivik before 3:26 p.m.. This is because one is often concerned with what is called the decision period.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Psychiatric expert Agnar Aspaas pay close attention to Morland and taking notes in a book he had in front of Morland while talking. Also Terje Tørrissen and Synne Sørheim take notes on their laptops, while Torgeir Husby sits leaning forward with an open computer in front of him.
09:38: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- Breivik says he has spent the last intake at 12.30. Then it is reasonable to believe that the top concentration has been about an hour later. But this is what I have taken into account, and my estimate is then standing. During this period, ie until 15.30, the efedrimkonsentrasjonen in Breivik been (...). I have measured halvveringstider middle. What does such a konsetrasjon like this? He has been included in the order of (...). There is something more than the therapy doses of 20-60 mg. I have called it "a little higher dose." The half-life is five hours. He should have used this in the period up to 15.30. That means he has ingested caffeine (...), corresponding to 4-6 cups of coffee of medium to high strength. Nevertheless, the concentrations below that can lead to the coffee poisoning. When you have up for about twice that. I mean then that the caffeine effect among Breivik has been considerable, and it may have had a very moderate ruseffekt as a result. This has probably given one one excited effect. Then there are steroids: It is made of discoveries and explanations, are consistent. 40 mg and 50 mg in two different products per day in a few weeks prior to 22 July. It is far beyond that used in the treatment, about 8-10 times higher. We also know that in the anabolic steroier user communities can use a higher percentage. - An assessment of the impact, to get back to the mandate and answer it, I have concluded that Breivik must be said to have had a mild to moderate influence of a stimulant effect. The to compare with alkoholrus I think is difficult, because the rapture is so different. But you can compare his intoxication with 10-15 milligrams of amphetamine, used by a beginner. A typical dose would be about 50 milligrams for one that begins with amphetamine. Then of course the effect is lost somewhat throughout the day. When the explosion happened, and the attack on Utøya occurred even later, it has apparently been less impact than that.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
From the time Breivik took his last dose of ECA-stack, and the findings in blood and urine, according to Morland that the influence of drugs was less when the bomb went off and the massacre of Utøya than earlier in the day .
09:41: Witness, Professor Jørg Morland:
- Then there is the matter of steroids has contributed to the intoxication, and my opinion is of what I've heard, it probably has some additional influence, but I can not rule out increased aggression and excitement in terms of cure of anabolic steroids in advance. It is the summary of the report. [Judge Arntzen: - When we open for questions, do you have any questions the prosecutor?]
Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- [Holden: - No questions from our site.] [Judge Arntzen: - Defenders] [Defense Geir Lippestad: - Yes, I have only one question. You referred to the clinical examination by a doctor and that he had considered that Breivik was easily influenced. Can you say something about how he was considering his state of health in general?] So, what I have included in my statements, defense counsel, only the positive findings are made. But he said Breivik could have easily influenced. The doctor's conclusion on the reason for this is that it may be due to ephedrine, but it can also be caused by psychological stress.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
While Morland explains the lean medforsvarer Odd Ivar Green forward to whisper something to Vibeke Hein Bæra. Breivik will comment on the testimony of Morland, and says he has spent much time trying to figure out what dose the body His tolerated, and believes he knows the effects of the substance that Mærland not know. Morland responds that he will not go into any discussion with pharmacological Breivik.
09:45: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- The doctor also says that from Breivik was that tired. [Judge Arntzen: - Are they coordinating any questions?] [Legal Assistance Larsen: - We heard a police officer referring to the arrest of 22 Utøya July. When we were told that during the first half hour had Breivik a hyperventilation sequence. Is there anything you can comment on?] I would say that the situation in itself is a more natural cause of hyperventilisering than drugs. But it can bring you to a state of mind where the risk of hyperventilation is greater. [The prosecutor Holden: - Dehydration, it is an effect of taking ECA stack?] In the dose we are talking about here, not necessarily. But it is clear that all central nervous stimulant that makes food, etc. are secondary. So one can assume that he has been drinking less purse because of it. [The prosecutor Holden: - Shortly after his arrest Breivik said that he would die of dehydration. Is it likely that there is something in this?] Had we analyzed the blood sample on something other than what we have done, we might find something there. That it should represenert a life threatening situation, I think, as a physician, I would not have been very worried. [The prosecutor Holden: - Thank you.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Next witness is Geir Egil onion, which has accounted for the bulk of the questioning of Breivik. He has taken a seat in the witness box, and choose to stand as he explains himself. It is not allowed to broadcast Løken's explanation, then the next VGTV broadcast comes when he is finished.
09:48: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Have the experts any questions?] [Defense Geir Lippstadt: Administrator, Breivik has a brief comment.] [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Thank you, then you can be sitting Morland . It is possible you have something to say to comment afterward.] [Anders Breivik Behring: Before the operation I tested different doses of both steroids and the ECA stack, to check what my body could tolerate, and to better adapt the dose. It is known that some funds are better tolerate, and some tolerate them worse. It is also worth emphasizing that aspirin enhances ephedrine effect significantly. The main reason for using this is to increase circulation significantly. It is also worth mentioning that the ECA results in heavy urination. It is a bi-effects, and that is why it is dehydration.] - I do not know if we are to get into a pharmacological discussion here. But we did not actually acid (as tracer) in any of the samples.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Interview Director Asbjørn Rachlew have already testified, and the prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh said they will try not to overlap each other's testimony. Løken conducted the hearing on Utøya as Breivik was back on the island along with the police after the massacre, and has conducted many interviews with him.
- [Jørg Morland is an expert on the toxicology department and shall deliver its opinion on whether Breivik was affected by drugs 22 July.] [Judge Arntzen: - I understand that you initially set Breivik any questions?] That's right.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
The sound does not work at the transfer before the courts. The court must therefore take a ten minute break so that the sound is fixed. It is concerned in this matter all over Norway, so the trial transferred to 17 things dishes around the country.
09:09: VG: - There is now a ten-minute break in court, because of technical problems with sound transfer to other court venues in the country. The court is back at approx. 09.17.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
It is expected that the court should start up again 09.15. During the break there is loud talking in the hall 250 Prosecutors Svein Holden talks to the experts, and many of the journalists are talking together. Breivik are normally taken out of the hall in connection with the break.
9:19: VG: - When the court sat again.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Morland will ask Breivik some spørsmål.Han wonder if Breivik used so-called ECA stack on July 22, which confirms Breivik. He claims he spent three times as much as is allowed in the EU. He took one capsule in the morning. mass killing man says that he had used the ECA stack about five times before July 22 in order to accustom the body to medicine. Morland works at the Institute of Public Health and was asked by the Oslo police to investigate whether Breivik was intoxicated during the terrorist attacks .
09:25: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- Did you use the drug ECA Stack that day? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Yes, that's right. I had it myself, using three ingredients. The doses were perhaps 50 percent larger than a commercial dose. Therefore I refer to the legal dose sold in the EU.] When did you dose 22 July? [Anders Breivik Behring: - I think I took the 12.30, so it was then absorbed approximately 12.50.] It was the last dose? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Right.] What form did it in? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Capsule.] One capsule? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Right.] How many days did you have used this prior to 22 July? [Anders Breivik Behring - I had taken it in respect to the body grows used. In this connection, I used it maybe five times about two weeks before, to turn the body of chemicals.] So you had taken it for two weeks and then a pause and then took it again?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik was examined and had to give blood and urine at 1:50 am on 23 last July. The hair samples were also taken from him, because hair can be used to map the use of substances over a longer period.
09:26: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- [Breivik: - Yes, that is. There were maybe two or three days ago I had taken a capsule prior to 22 July.] - That's fine, then I have in essence been answered what I was going. - Just briefly about the background so when I received this mandate from the Oslo Police to investigate whether there were effects on work time, and how extensive it possibly was. What I knew was that the defendant had used anabolic steroids. Thurs preparations. So we've heard now that the ECA stack has been used at times, and last around 12:00 deed the day. We can count on complete absorption from about 13:00 on the day. - There was blood and urine that night he was arrested. The doctor found a few things, and found approx. 1:30 Breivik that were affected. It could be caused by drugs or mental stress.
09:29: Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Morland sits in the witness box with his arm resting on the edge of the witness box as he presents the findings in the samples that were taken by Breivik. As an experienced toxicologist, he explained in court many times before.
09:29: Witness, Professor Jørg Morland:
- So also was a clinical forensic medical examination by Per Hoff-Olsen, as was also taken hair samples of Breivik and new hair samples of 31 august. They tell something about the history of the use of drugs in the past. It is part eventually in cases where one wishes to identify foreign substances in the past. What we found in the different samples were ephedrine, caffeine and a substance is a conversion of the drug nicotine. So we have made discoveries in the urine of ephedrine and of a transformation product of steroids.
09:31: Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Morland says that high doses of ephedrine may cause confusion, virkelighetsforvrengninger and paranoid ideas, but only as long as the substance found in the body. For years, however, extensive use of ephedrine trigger a psychosis-like state similar to schizophrenia, says Morland. Breivik rubbing his eyes as he listens to Morland explanation. He also shows no reaction to the toxicologists explains.
09:31: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- The samples were sent to a special laboratory in Dresden, Germany. And it was found that substances Breivik said he had used. These findings were consistent with the explanation of Breivik had given about the use of steroioder. (...) It is used to expand the airways in the lungs and is used in the treatment of bronchitis and used a little bit still. But it has a central nervous stimulant effects, such as amphetamines. The amphetamines light. It provides blood pressure, can cause intoxication, with russymptomer: Increased confidence, increased risk-taking and reduced critical sense. There have also been findings indicating that increases the risk of violence. Ephedrine can cause sanseforvrengninger and paranoid sensations. They have no basis in reality. This is also the cocaine. (....) - When they are due to a single intake as are the effects short-lived and often disappear hours after intake. So it has been mentioned in the literature that taking a long time can trigger psychosis. There are not many cases have been reported. Around 50 in the world literature in total. It is through the intake of 2-300 mg per day. - Caffeine should I talk so far about. There is also the active ingredient in coffee. It provides an easy central nervous stimulant effect, too. Measure the level of coffee drinkers as there are often 5 to 10 mikromål per liter of blood. Caffeine in the blood are halved in a matter of hours. - I will take a little bit about anabolic steroids.
09:33: Witness, Professor Jørg Morland:
- Anabolic steroids, which he tried to take away the testosterone effect. They are not used much in medicine anymore, but primarily to improve physical performance, not just in sports. It works in training to increase muscle mass. It has been argued that it increases the risk of violence by users. [Morland explains about a study done on the topic] As of 2004 it was found that the studies could not demonstrate convincingly that it was associated aggression and violence. It concluded yet with - according to the clinical studies had used higher doses - its use in some individuals could trigger mental disorders like elation and sometimes aggression.
09:34: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- There are many observational studies in the field where one measures the substance that is present in violent, for example. They are often difficult to interpret, partly because there may be other drugs in the body. Then there are caffeine and effedrin. What I have focused on in my analysis, is how much there was of these substances in Breivik before 3:26 p.m.. This is because one is often concerned with what is called the decision period.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Psychiatric expert Agnar Aspaas pay close attention to Morland and taking notes in a book he had in front of Morland while talking. Also Terje Tørrissen and Synne Sørheim take notes on their laptops, while Torgeir Husby sits leaning forward with an open computer in front of him.
09:38: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- Breivik says he has spent the last intake at 12.30. Then it is reasonable to believe that the top concentration has been about an hour later. But this is what I have taken into account, and my estimate is then standing. During this period, ie until 15.30, the efedrimkonsentrasjonen in Breivik been (...). I have measured halvveringstider middle. What does such a konsetrasjon like this? He has been included in the order of (...). There is something more than the therapy doses of 20-60 mg. I have called it "a little higher dose." The half-life is five hours. He should have used this in the period up to 15.30. That means he has ingested caffeine (...), corresponding to 4-6 cups of coffee of medium to high strength. Nevertheless, the concentrations below that can lead to the coffee poisoning. When you have up for about twice that. I mean then that the caffeine effect among Breivik has been considerable, and it may have had a very moderate ruseffekt as a result. This has probably given one one excited effect. Then there are steroids: It is made of discoveries and explanations, are consistent. 40 mg and 50 mg in two different products per day in a few weeks prior to 22 July. It is far beyond that used in the treatment, about 8-10 times higher. We also know that in the anabolic steroier user communities can use a higher percentage. - An assessment of the impact, to get back to the mandate and answer it, I have concluded that Breivik must be said to have had a mild to moderate influence of a stimulant effect. The to compare with alkoholrus I think is difficult, because the rapture is so different. But you can compare his intoxication with 10-15 milligrams of amphetamine, used by a beginner. A typical dose would be about 50 milligrams for one that begins with amphetamine. Then of course the effect is lost somewhat throughout the day. When the explosion happened, and the attack on Utøya occurred even later, it has apparently been less impact than that.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
From the time Breivik took his last dose of ECA-stack, and the findings in blood and urine, according to Morland that the influence of drugs was less when the bomb went off and the massacre of Utøya than earlier in the day .
09:41: Witness, Professor Jørg Morland:
- Then there is the matter of steroids has contributed to the intoxication, and my opinion is of what I've heard, it probably has some additional influence, but I can not rule out increased aggression and excitement in terms of cure of anabolic steroids in advance. It is the summary of the report. [Judge Arntzen: - When we open for questions, do you have any questions the prosecutor?]
Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- [Holden: - No questions from our site.] [Judge Arntzen: - Defenders] [Defense Geir Lippestad: - Yes, I have only one question. You referred to the clinical examination by a doctor and that he had considered that Breivik was easily influenced. Can you say something about how he was considering his state of health in general?] So, what I have included in my statements, defense counsel, only the positive findings are made. But he said Breivik could have easily influenced. The doctor's conclusion on the reason for this is that it may be due to ephedrine, but it can also be caused by psychological stress.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
While Morland explains the lean medforsvarer Odd Ivar Green forward to whisper something to Vibeke Hein Bæra. Breivik will comment on the testimony of Morland, and says he has spent much time trying to figure out what dose the body His tolerated, and believes he knows the effects of the substance that Mærland not know. Morland responds that he will not go into any discussion with pharmacological Breivik.
09:45: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- The doctor also says that from Breivik was that tired. [Judge Arntzen: - Are they coordinating any questions?] [Legal Assistance Larsen: - We heard a police officer referring to the arrest of 22 Utøya July. When we were told that during the first half hour had Breivik a hyperventilation sequence. Is there anything you can comment on?] I would say that the situation in itself is a more natural cause of hyperventilisering than drugs. But it can bring you to a state of mind where the risk of hyperventilation is greater. [The prosecutor Holden: - Dehydration, it is an effect of taking ECA stack?] In the dose we are talking about here, not necessarily. But it is clear that all central nervous stimulant that makes food, etc. are secondary. So one can assume that he has been drinking less purse because of it. [The prosecutor Holden: - Shortly after his arrest Breivik said that he would die of dehydration. Is it likely that there is something in this?] Had we analyzed the blood sample on something other than what we have done, we might find something there. That it should represenert a life threatening situation, I think, as a physician, I would not have been very worried. [The prosecutor Holden: - Thank you.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Next witness is Geir Egil onion, which has accounted for the bulk of the questioning of Breivik. He has taken a seat in the witness box, and choose to stand as he explains himself. It is not allowed to broadcast Løken's explanation, then the next VGTV broadcast comes when he is finished.
09:48: Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Have the experts any questions?] [Defense Geir Lippstadt: Administrator, Breivik has a brief comment.] [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Thank you, then you can be sitting Morland . It is possible you have something to say to comment afterward.] [Anders Breivik Behring: Before the operation I tested different doses of both steroids and the ECA stack, to check what my body could tolerate, and to better adapt the dose. It is known that some funds are better tolerate, and some tolerate them worse. It is also worth emphasizing that aspirin enhances ephedrine effect significantly. The main reason for using this is to increase circulation significantly. It is also worth mentioning that the ECA results in heavy urination. It is a bi-effects, and that is why it is dehydration.] - I do not know if we are to get into a pharmacological discussion here. But we did not actually acid (as tracer) in any of the samples.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Interview Director Asbjørn Rachlew have already testified, and the prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh said they will try not to overlap each other's testimony. Løken conducted the hearing on Utøya as Breivik was back on the island along with the police after the massacre, and has conducted many interviews with him.
09:51: KRIPOS: Interrogator: Geir Egil Loken:
09:51: Witness Geir Egil Loken, police officer NCIS:
- [The witness oath] [The prosecutor Bejer Engh: - You know a little what both defense counsel and we would like. You can start on your own. You can go through what you intend to speak and take questions afterwards] Yes, I can give a brief background on why I stand here. I have investigated organized crime in Oslo and investigating the most serious drug cases. In addition, I assisted the violent section of the questioning in homicide cases. The explanation here I will first give a little refresher on the basis for interrogations. Then I dropped three themes as it is desired that I should. It is the questioning group has considered how the defendant and the defendant acted and behaved under interrogation at Utøya. It was not a reconstruction, it was questioning. Avslutningvis I'll get into how the defendant has changed his way of getting in after a while.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Loken said that interrogation founders had to repeat to himself that the interrogations would be common interrogation in an unusual situation. They have questioned Breivik in 220 hours, and says Breivik has appeared as the same person during these interrogations that in court. Union believes that Breivik was more difficult to examine in court on issues such as Knights Templar and the alleged cells.
09:53: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Our aim is always to get as much reliable and verifiable information as possible. When NN was questioned 23 July, as she realized that this was difficult, and it was put into an interrogation team. [Rattles off members of the interrogation team.] With Asbjørn Rachlew as a consultant. I meet here as a representative, I feel, for interrogation team. We've all read through the explanation, but it told you with my voice. Our starting point is that we do, have done and would do the same in this case as in all other cases. And in other cases, we see the person we are interviewing a person as an individual and not as the act he has done.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Løken says Breivik be careful and ask for a hearing founders were tired, but never asked about how neither the family, mother or friends had it for 22 July.
09:54: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- It is because it is best to get a good conversation in the interrogations. We use the same methodology as in other hearings, and the same ethical guidelines and professional approach. We focus on that it would be a normal interview in a very unusual case. How are we questioning the group perceived the defendant? The main point to the NN, I would like to repeat. We have seen him in 220 hours. The main impression is that the defendant you see in court is the same we got to know during interrogation. He is a little more reserved when it comes to Knights Templar and the Norwegian cells. He would tell us 98 percent, but 2 percent, he would keep for themselves. In court we find that the defendant was a little more difficult to deal with than in questioning when it comes to Knights Templar. The defendant is patient and persistent. Interrogations have been somewhat heavy. He has compared himself to us in a proper manner. The defendant is aware, courteous and have a good, coherent language. - He is also conscious of caring for others in the interrogation room. Often we asked if he was tired, and he said no and that he was more worried about us. For we were too, tired. But he still never asked how it went with family, friends and her mother. He was aware of how he was perceived. He started the interview by asking interrogate if she had the unfortunate distinction of interrogating the biggest monster in the history of Norway since Quisling. He also talked about his CV, which we described as unimpressive and confronted him with that it would be strange if a terrorist network recruited him because of it. He said that we had forgotten the essential things, which he was elected in a school class and at work. We asked if he really thought it was significant, then he laughed a little and said he saw our point.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Løken says Breivik also questioning was told that his CV not vote rover's that he would be recruited to the Knights Templar, which according to him would change the history of Europe. Breivik pointed out then that the CV was missing several appointments from school and work, and was asked back if he thought it would be relevant to the Knights Templar. He then realized that how he appeared, and laughed at it, says onion. Breivik smiles from the dock when he hears this. Løken says Breivik usually had humor and self irony of socially accepted places in interrogations, and that he never joked about the case or his victims. At the same time experienced founders interrogation that he occasionally smiled at locations where it was not natural. - He said that it was a defense mechanism, it does not necessarily mean that something is good, explains the onion.
09:58: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- The defendant, he clearly distinguishes between the case and interviewing that person has not always had that luxury. We have sequences along the way which can be intense where we are going and ask challenging questions, but when the sequence is over, it's over. When we have had break has accused joked and a pleasant tone. He has both humor and self irony, he jokes with the case or not their victims. He does mainly fun of themselves, often beklostning of psychiatrists and the first forensic psychiatric statement. The humor fits into the social sammehengen which it appears. He smiled occasionally during interrogation in places where we found it unusual, and when we asked why. He has since said that it is a kind of defense mechanism and a way to cope with feelings. That does not necessarily mean that he thinks it is good.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion and questioning the team got the impression that Breivik was determined to perform in talks with parties questioning, especially during interrogation at Utøya.
10:01: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- We have the impression that the defendant is very good at focusing on ... So, he's very focused on the details, he focuses on. His attention to detail, I have very seldom seen someone who has read this carefully questioning her, for example. But while he has not so much focus on the overriding things. I do not know if it has been up that the defendant is analytical, but I can say anything about it. He will often know why we ask what we ask. We must constantly be aware of the way to follow up on those things. We were soon left with the impression that the defendant wishes to perform. He wants to be good in the talks with us.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion Breivik perceived as vain in the questioning. When he was brought into the interrogation room the first time, he was wearing a t-shirt that he got after the clothes he had during the massacre of Utøya were seized. Breivik then asked if the media would get access to pictures of him in the tea outfit. - So he turned to the mirror in the interrogation room and directed the weld, said onion. Onions also says that he would not be wearing any slippers during interrogation because they saw "so sucks out". Breivik smiles broadly to onion when he let this room.
10:04: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- It was again an additional challenge that we were particularly aware of Utøya. The desire to present, combined with the desire to be analytical, he made us fit very well in our questioning later not to ask leading questions. The defendant could draw a conclusion about where we wanted to go, and constructed a response that is not necessarily correct. As you have noticed also in court, the defendant uses a lot of percentages. A special episode from 23.7. The accused were given clothes Utøya, and his own clothes were seized. The first thing to be said when Breivik enters the interrogation room: "Will the media have access to what I look like?" Then he looked toward the mirror and put one on the right place. [Breivik smiles.] He did not have late he got paid for that sucks out. If he were to move in avhørsrommem he checked several times checked how he looked at his hair. We see him as very confident about their own knowledge and he conveys his knowledge very convincing. I must say that in the beginning, we were almost blinded by the way of expression and the use of foreign words: Delegitimere, deconstruction, expropriate. These words were used in unusual contexts. F. eks.ekspropriere - forced surrender, was used in unusual contexts.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion said that interrogation team was first a little dazzled by Breivik's speech and apparent wealth of knowledge, but it soon became clear that much of the knowledge was superficial. At the same time the police had chosen a strategy to verify a lot of knowledge which he actually had was not the most important, the important thing was to gather information. - Sometimes I wanted to proceed with questions to see what knowledge really bottomed out, he said.
10:05: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- I allow myself to read two examples. He said it was like, "the old warheads containing plutonium, most were secure, but some were expropriated by the Russian mafia and sold to terrorists." [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Is it okay that he read from this?] - Yes I was maybe a little offensive now. [Defense Geir Lippestad:] - It's okay. There are good examples. - The second example was that he also said "that it might have been appropriate to expropriate a flight from Fornebu". We know what he means, but it is unusual contexts he uses words in. He norwegianised also a good deal of English words. - As we revealed that the knowledge was a bit superficial, but based on the way things were passed on, we had to have knowledge of the issues the defendant talked about, too few follow up and verify a. The first two thirds of the interviews we had not focused on following up what he said, but rather to gather knowledge. There were times I wanted to follow up more closely, but we had chosen a strategy and not go that way. He said that Wikipedia was his main source of knowledge. I particularly noted that there have been questions about the police have been accused of lying or not. It's a question I think is terribly difficult to answer.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Løken find it difficult to say whether Breivik has lied under questioning. He has the impression that he adapts information to their worldview, even when it comes to historical information. However, it is difficult for interrogation holders to know who is lying when it is a difference between Brevik and friends' versions of things that have happened to him through life.
10:07: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Like everyone else in the investigation as we verify a defendant's what has been said, and it's a bit of job interviews. The day before yesterday it was the testimony from friends of the defendant. They explained the yes on various episodes that the defendant also testified about. And we recognize that yes there are quite a large distance between the different perceptions. [The prosecutor Engh: - Do you think these violent episodes?] Right, as an example. We have confronted the defendant with this, but when he stands on his story, saying that the other must remember wrong, or the like. About when the defendant is lying, or whether this is part of his current reality, I can not answer. Or if the other is lying. This also applies to other things. - Knights Templar, he will not explain so much about. He keeps on his travels on. If this is a lie or his reality now, we take no position on. We see that the defendant adapt things that happen to their vision. He has even said that in connection with the lecture notes he has taken the historical events and used them subjectively to show his vision. There was an article in a single copy newspaper based on police sources, where it was that Breivik was not particularly intelligent. We were skeptical as to how this would affect the interrogations. - Nevertheless, the defendants failed to make it into something positive. He thought that it could do for others that would create a campaign thought that they did not have to be so smart to carry it. Another example of adaptation is called other extreme-right, after he was arrested. He described the laser as a man who would execute people who looked like Muslims. Laser man the stubborn refusal afterwards to be racist. It is difficult to see how the defendant can establish that he would execute people who look like Muslims. When I described the defendant as we have seen him. I will discuss how the interview went on Utøya.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
When Breivik was asked Hadeland killings during interrogation at Utøya, he said he did not know them. In retrospect, he imdilertid said he is aware that they were carried out by militant nationalists. Breivik have been allowed to give evidence in a further one hour during the case, and has announced that he will come with a list of known attacks by militant nationalists in Norway since the war. Hadeland killings occurred in ferbuar 1981, after a dispute over payment for the weapons theft from the Home Guard. The two men who were killed were shot by 29 shots, according to wikipedia. While the onion defends himself, whispering Odd Ivar Green to Vibeke Hein Bæra, who sits on the bench in front with Breivik, that he will have konatkt with Breivik. Breivik leans back against the back row and get a short message from Greenland.
10:14: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- So I intend to go into how the questioning went on Utøya defendants then. We made the first interrogation at the police station on Utøya. It was mt first meeting with the accused in the interrogation room. Chance made it so that I was gone 22 July, and when I came back to Oslo one week later, I had not pursued the matter in the media. I had no knowledge of the island before I started and had not read the police reports, but only images of the island and it was an advantage. It made sure that I asked many questions of the defendant to understand, as did the defendant explained a lot. He said many details. [Judge Arntzen: - Excuse me, when was the interview?] There were 9 and 10 august. The defendant was calm, no emotion, and the victims were the objects of his explanation. - When we were out on Utøya it became a bit complex procedure, but we ended up there, and I sat together with the defendant and his counsel in a bus Utvika. And when he said that he was a little worried about how this would go, and he was a little nervous that he was going out on Utøya, but he wanted to get out there. Because he wanted to explain what had happened. He was put in the same context as the day, the same movements, the same places, the same smells, etc. Because he was a little nervous, so we started first on the pier in the country side and spent some time there before we went in the boat. On the way out as he explained in detail about what happened there.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion, the main impression Breivik interrogation of Utøya (often referred to as reconstruction), was that Breivik tried to remember as much as possible of what he did during the massacre. Onion did not know details about the murders, and so can not set fixed Breivik on things that did not vote.
10:17: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- The defendant said he was concerned to explain as much as possible. He explained in detail and continuous. He collaborated and illustrated physically what he did. There were more details on Utøya than it did inside the interrogation room. Since I had no prior knowledge of what had happened on Utøya, I've realized in retrospect that the defendant has told the same thing out on Utøya as it actually happened. However, there were errors in some places. He had a little trouble remembering the geography of the island and chronology. Some incidents were described in detail, but the wrong physical space. At least three times, while we were there, so we discovered that the defendant until the reasoned response, instead of saying that he did not remember. Thus he must be analytical and have a desire to perform under the explanations. Our main experience was that he tried to remember as much and as detailed as possible when we were there. - [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Can you say whether there was much he did not remember? Was the sequences in time and place?] I did not know the details then, and have chosen not to have it. So I do not know. But when the investigation was finished, we considered whether we needed a new interrogation. It did not. So the answer is probably in it. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Here the court said a lot about Utøya. But the confrontation on some things he says often that he has read it afterwards. How much has he learned in hindsight] I do not actually. I have not read the report. I have included not read about the sacrifice, because I have interacted with Breivik and focused on him. But by questioning people with the skills have been present, although we did not have a full view of the island. My impression is that he remembers more of what happened, than he can not remember what happened. - [Judge Arntzen: - Was it more than once he said "no, this I do not remember"?] I would think, but I remember any specific episodes now. I can answer at a later date. [The prosecutor Bejer Engh - I've heard a lot about the Café building, but did you have any impression that he remembers in detail what happened there?] Inside the Café building was the three episodes that I referred to earlier where he constructed a response, rather than He replied that he did not remember. [Defense Lippestad was there during the interrogation of the island and told the court that he wants that goes into detail on this topic] I agree that we do it. [Bejer Engh: - I want to know what Breivik remembered the time, and match it with what he remembers in court today. Because he has access to all the documents before he has come here] I can tell the three episodes that were different. - The reason I have bitten my mark in these episodes here, is that it is the three times he told himself, but he actually remembered it. The first is when we came into the café building. When the defendant came in, he said "yes, here I executed four pieces." Then he illustrated how he had done so. So I say, "Why do you remember that?" "Yes, here it is the blood stains on the floor, so I must have killed someone," he said then. "Yes, that's right, but it can not be that someone has been injured or ripped here?" And then he said yes, it could vote, "I remember nothing from this room."
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Both the prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh and defends Geir Lippestad interested in going into more depth on what Breivik really remember from the massacre, and what he has read up on later. The onion tells in detail how he testified about the massacre in the Café building when they were back on Utøya. Løken Breivik explains that often reasoned to where he had killed the children by how Café building looked like, for example, because he saw blood tracking or windows covered in plastic. In some cases, did not mean he killed someone he thought. At the same time be able to tell Breivik room detail some of the murders, but it was not necessarily the place where the murders occurred.
10:24: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- As we went further into the main hall. When he describes that the piano was down to the right once you arrive. He described that in detail how the killings were carried out. Then he describes the diagonal of the room as he reacted to the posters to the AUF, which hung on one wall. Then he described several other killings, including one who was hiding behind a microphone stand. He said he was aware of attacks from the sides. In the dining hall, he told in detail how he killed several in the corner. But he does not remember anything more from the room than he had been there. We are looking out and then into the entrance kiosk. When the accused says: I must have killed someone through the door. There was a door that was covered with black plastic. Then I ask: What is the reason why you remember it? There are black plastic, so it means I must have shot through here. Several times in Utøya he describes in detail the events, but they must have been farther away.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
The court takes a break and be back at approx. 10:40.
10:27: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: When it comes to the cafe building and the large hall as he spoke about a piano you. Was it there? How it was ... No. There was nothing there when we were there [prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: But it was there on 22 July, as he claimed?] Well ... I know .. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Okay. So you do not know about it?] No. Then I go back to what I will say today. It's also about defendants have changed their testimony, which has been the theme here. I have made a choice, I'm sitting with 270 pages, so I have taken what is easiest to notice. It is about the manifesto and the Knights Templar. [The prosecutor Svein Holden: I'm sorry to interrupt. But we should take a break now, if we are to catch that before lunch.] It is right to break 10.40.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
He chats with medforsvarer Isolated Ground, still with his hands in handcuffs. onion must wait until arrestforvarerne get by Breivik handcuffs so that he gets settled. onion will now go on to explain about the interrogations have had the Knights Templar.
10:47: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [The judge said to the onion that he is now entering a new topic] I was just reminded of one thing in connection with Utøya. When we visited Utøya with the defendant as the island was completely cleared, everything was taken away. Things from the victim and the deceased was removed and Café building was completely cleared and it was washed away the remains of what had happened, which may have influenced the memory image of the defendant when the furniture was removed. What we now must begin is that observed changes in connection with the compendium and the Knights Templar. - There is then an issue that the court's players have asked me to say. Seen as how the defendants made statements about the compendium. And I will also later say something about the two terms he has used on its own. The defendant has told us is that he has not talked about the Knights Templar other than those of the Knights Templar. And he's an exception to moderate posts of the compendium and published it online to get comments on it, and input. But what about the Knights Templar, he has not spoken to anyone about, before he comes to questioning at Utøya. It is the first time when he talks about Knights Templar in a social context. When he talks to us in interviews, so we have tried not to act in it. But it is impossible in a social context, not to give any feedback in the form of facial expressions, body language etc.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik has even said that he has never talked to anyone about the Knights Templar before being questioned July 22. After 10:08 Breivik had talked to the experts the first time and gave interviews holders the impression that he had received feedback on what he told them. After 15.11 the letter and the restraining of the letters and visitor control, and 29.11, the first expert report that concludes that Breivik is paranoid schizophrenic and the criminally insane. Later, he also gained access to the media. Løken stressed that all these things may have affected Breivik when he made statements about the Knights Templar.
10:52: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- 10.8 2011 - So a couple of weeks after the events, the first meeting with rettspsykiatrene. He has received some feedback on how he has been uppp made by them. 15.11 was the restraining order lifted. He gained access to the letter, which was read by the police first, but it's still an impact source. 29.11, the first trial quaint report presented. Some findings in the report and the conclusion was presented to him. Because it contained references to interrogation, he was unable to access the full report before 12/13/11 The defendant had access to the full report and access to media. Then he was interacting with others in prison and observation team that the other legal experts, the team brought in I will first describe how he described the Knights Templar, the compendium early in the case, then a summary, and saw how he looked at the two later in sk and as the terms commander and (...).
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion Breivik says that in the beginning talking about the Knights Templar as an organization consisting of very talented people who were "extremely intelligent". He thought they were between 113 and 80 people in Europe, that they would eventually get the factory capacity and ability to create a "poor man's nuclear bomb." - This was what we had to deal with the Knights Templar in the early interrogations say onion.
10:55: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- When the defendant in the beginning was to tell of Knights Templar, he said that he was cellekommenadør and that it was 15,000 milli Aunt nationalists in Norway. The fact that he was the commander meant that there were at least two members in Norway, and he had sympathizers in the PST and the authorities. When he was arrested he said he was commander of the resistance movement, which he also talked about as the anti-communist resistance movement, and he said he thought he might be elected Grand Master in Europe after the operation. He then said that it is special about Knights Templar was that they focused on getting hold of a few extremely talented individuals, who were not on watch lists and kept a low profile. He said they had 80 members, but everyone was extremely potent. Later he said that it was a tiny bit organization with 15-30 members, but he thought that it had grown by several hundred after the operation. He has since said in between 13 and 80 members. [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: In Europe?] Yes. He describes, however, that it will be the largest revolutionary organization right wing in Europe. They were to obtain laboratory and build a "poor man's nuclear bomb."
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
While onion explains, says psychiatrist Torgeir Husby something to his colleague Synne Sørheim. She nods and keeps notes on her laptop on her lap. Both Terje Tørrissen and Agnar Aspaas also sits and takes notes.
10:58: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- When it comes to the compendium as defendant explained that he traveled from London in 2002 with approximately 50-60 pages and notes that he had given a lot in addition to the notes. On this basis he made the compendium. It would be a compendium of the new direction of the national conservative. In interview the defendant said that he had spent four years full-time on the manifest. He said first that he wrote the 2006 to 2007 or 2007 to 2008, and that he was finished in October 2009. It was the most expensive he had done at a cost of two million. The defendant's task in the organization, which he described as relatively large and strong was writing the compendium where the presentation and distribution was important. - The same day as he said that he had made a post in the compendium, a part-document to his defense counsel use in the trial. He would also bring along three sides of the compendium in court to being held in custody. So he made it clear what the compendium was, and that it was not made for Norway, that in a way it was designed for an English audience. He also said that the compendium was the operation itself, Utøya was just fireworks. However, in the same interview, after the defendant was pushed a little on what kind of background material he had brought from London, and when he said that after all this was only a draft. Not a finished product, but a version.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Interrogation team realized early on that the distribution of the so-called compendium was the most important for Breivik. He talked a lot about how much time and money he had used to create it, and that he had been asked to make the Knights Templar.
11:02: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- It is true insofar as the defendant wrote the manifesto itself, that he wants people with the right skills who can develop the compendium he has written. Facts about the Knights Templar, he constantly refers to the compendium, "I've already written about in the compendium." A summary of how we perceived Knights Templar in the beginning: He is the leader in Norway and after the operation he wonders if he can be elected head of KT in Europe. It wants to become a pan-European organization. They have up to 800 members now and it is 15,000 militant nationalists only in Norway, and it is symptatisører within the police and PST. Breivik talking about the "poor man's nuclear bomb." The two other Norwegian cells and the remaining cells in Europe is described in a manner that they are gifted with implementing the will and ability. This organization has accused the task to write a compendium, to collect from the reactionary right wing in Europe. The distribution of the compendium was the main target of 22.7 events. That he at an early stage will use parts of it in an early trial, could mean that he was responsible for the compendium as it was written there and then.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik testified about his uniform before he got to know the conclusion of the forensic psychiatric statement. - He explained fairly colorful, says onion. After he learned that he be declared insane, he chose, however, to downplay the significance of the uniform strong. He also said that in hindsight, he has considered whether he should have brult second adjectives than he had in kompnediet. Psychiatrist Torgeir Husby leans forward and stares at Breivik when the onion tells it.
11:03: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Then we go to that change. As has emerged in court, then the word "glossy picture" first used in interrogations 10/11/2011. He says what he has said what he said to give a glossy picture of the Knights Templar, but the organization actually is under establishment. So he uses the word first turn 01/03/2012. Then said he also "pompous" for the first time. He explains himself later still pretty colorful on the uniform before he becomes familiar with the psychiatric report. What he said about the uniform he uses later to explain what he means by saying he "spoke pompous." When he found out about the irresponsible report, he said immediately that he had to become more defensive in interviews. And maybe he should have used other adjectives in the manifest. He gained access to the media and report the same day.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
As Breivik also testified in court before, he claimed to police that he had tried on a "pompous presentation" of the manifest and Knights Templar, in a bid to get more recruitment.
11:07: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- where he talked about expressing themselves shamelessly. He had chosen at the beginning of the case, a strategy to talk about the Knights Templar in a pompous way, he said both interviewing and court savvy. When he read the media that he had communicated in a way that was not understood correctly by others. He realized he had to change the strategy. He had been isolated and did not understand how he had been conceived before he got access to the media and the forensic psychiatric statement. For the police it was part of an interrogation 1 March 2012 that we really noticed the change in the defendant's way of talking about the Knights Templar. It was the first interrogation we should have a line change and went closer to the theme. But I would stress that it was defendant himself who went into detail on his way to talk about the Knights Templar, until he was confronted. So it was questioning the 1st March 8 and we had a new experience of the Knights Templar and the compendium. The pompous mediation had not worked, so he had deliberately toned down how he expresses himself. - What I got to know now is that the Knights Templar is a very small group of people with a common ideology. What he has described in the compendium is that it is an international environment. He has only met with four others, two in Norway. This stands in contrast to when he assumed that there were 130 members. The defendant claimed during interrogation that the network exists, but it is described in such a way that they want it to be. The compendium was then presented as a glossy picture, like a pompous account of reality, and so it could be. The defendant understands that there are many who think the compendium is ridiculous, but his problem is that he has been alone. - At the same time he emphasizes that the compendium is written for a specific audience and it is not for everyone to understand. The defendant ends up writing himself a cell and the compendium was the target audience. To call the organization KT was a public relations strategy. They went into the identity because it was salgsbar. Then I go into the concept of civil war. In the interview on 22.7 Utøya said defendants nine times that civil war had started. Norway is in civil war. The next day, said he this was the start of a civil war. He said during interrogation 22.11 that they consider the conflict today as a very long civil war that will last up to 70 years. It began in 1999 when the Bondevik government approved the invasion of Serbia. The defendant has stated that a civil war, as it is perceived by most is that people running around the streets with Kalashnikov as they do in the Middle East. 08.03.12, he says that he has never said that it is a civil war. We are in Phase 1 This means that there may be terrorist attacks. He has never said that we are in a civil war, but that it could develop into a civil war in the conventional sense, as he has described in the compendium, and as was stated in court yesterday.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik has repeatedly talked about the civil war in Europe, but eventually clarifies that he does not believe there is talk of a conventional civil war, but that there is a danger of this. He made a similar moderation when he used the word cell commander, as he stopped using the 29.11 - the same day as an expert witness report came. After this he used the term foot soldier. Onions go through the changes in Breivik's explanations, where the biggest change happened after he had learned of the conclusion of the first two experts. onion believe the clearest two changes in Breivik's explanation was 1 and 8 March 2012, when he testified about the Knights Templar. He described himself as more like the average, and the recruitment process to the Knights Templar to be more random.
11:14: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- As to the concept of commander. I'll go into that. Already in connection with telephone calls to police from Utøya, as he calls himself that. I think it was in the anti-communist resistance movement. In questioning the next day, he describes himself as that. He says he is cell commander and that there are two other under him. 11/09/2011 the word "foot soldier" was first mentioned when he says he does not want is a soldier in the traditional context. The next time he mentions the word, he says that he is just a foot soldier. He also says later that "yes, I am Commander cell. This means that I lead two others, and not an army of thousands. "The word is not said again. But the foot soldier is mentioned again twice in March 2012, and also here in court, as far as I understand. What I can confirm is that the defendant's way of explaining himself to have changed, he even said straight out that he needed it after he became aware of irresponsible report in December, and that "the strategy to be pompous, had failed . "The biggest change in the interrogation came in March 2012. They were prominent. - I can only briefly say that for us who sat in the back room on the 1st March as we all reacted with amazement at the way things were passed on. We looked at each other and said "what was what happened." There was another person sitting there. Sorry, there was not another person but the way he passed on was really transformed when he talked about the Knights Templar. Compendium was initially stated that he had laid down several years and was the main reason for the operation and procedures. Now it's a product that would sell a network that was being established. The defendant actually said on one occasion that the compendium was not important. Ever conclusion: the most significant changes took place on 1 March and 8 March. The core of what the defendant has said has been fixed and that is that he has visited a Serb in Liberia and went to an establishment meeting in London and was a proxy for the Serb. He met other people in London during the meeting. The defendant was one of two who was commissioned to write the lecture notes and design principles to the Knights Templar based on info from London. The defendant has gone to Balitkum, there are two cells in Norway and he is the head of the. Everything in the manifest is true and it has accused almost all the way, albeit expressed in different ways, in interviews and also here. - [Engh: - As I have just a couple of follow-up question for you. We've all been a little concerned about it when he starts to use the word "glossy picture" and "pompous." So I understand that he for the first time, 18 October, have used the word "glossy picture" of Knights Templar. But then you say he is a few days later explained on his uniform, and then use the term "colorful". What is it?] We went through piece by piece uniform and medals, and it was described in a way that struck a balance from such defendant had explained about the Knights Templar in the past. [Engh: - So there was no difference from how he talked about the Knights Templar before?] No, I would rather say that it was in the same line. He even said that it would be disrespectful to wear the uniform in the interrogation room, because he had such great respect for the uniform. - he would not put on it because he had respect for the uniform. [The prosecutor Engh: - Was he still interested in wanting to have it on during a trial?] I do not think so. [The prosecutor Engh: - So you have told that the very nature of the first expert report, he gets access to in December. The first marked difference you notice in March. What happens in the period between December and March?] I have also tried to think through when I have prepared me. It is consistent is that this is very much about the Knights Templar. Although there is a theme, it would appear all the way up. It must almost be the answer to that. [The prosecutor Engh: - If I'm going to summarize: He is another way to pass on. The scope of the Knights Templar. Are there any related to the use of the uniform?] We have not talked much about the uniform. He believes it is one of the teams have forwarded the the pompous about. [The prosecutor Engh: - Changed his view of himself in March, who he is and what he can or can not?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion said he got the impression that Breivik had not expected to be known insane, but that it is difficult to say whether he was surprised.
11:23: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Previously, both the defendant described himself as very intelligent, and described based on the criteria of the Knight Templar that he would keep it in order to get into. When we deal with it in March, so the selection is rather described as random, that he had average intelligence, and only did so well at school. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Early in the case he spoke of civil war, but said he had never said it later?] Defendant his words intact. It's hard to take someone in a lie, as I said. The way things are passed on makes us perceive things in a way, and so is it that we think "yes, that's correct, but ..." He says, for example, straight out that we are in civil war, but then the later phase 1 and not the way we think about it. That he never meant conventional civil war, which he explains in March. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Did he express surprise over how we look at him when he got the media and report? Did you get any impression of it?] - I got the impression that he is not expected to be known irresponsible. If he was surprised or not I should not say. But that message did not reach out as he hoped, is the recognition that he was surprised. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: As I have not further questions.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lippestad want to know how it is related to that already Breivik 08.10 - ie before the conclusion of the first two expert witnesses were ready - said he had conveyed Knights Templar as a glossy picture. Løken believes the defendant is not at this time had the full understanding of how he was perceived, especially because he did this with a detailed explanation of the uniform of the Knights Templar. He holds fast therefore in that the big change came in March this year, after Breivik was declared utliregenlig. Lippestad argues that Breivik described the KT network as "more dangerous" than it was, to achieve benefits that computer through negotiations. - It is clear that a man who has carried out what we know has happened, such a man is taken seriously and a man like that does not blow up a network to be heard, answer onion.
11:27: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Defense Lippestad: - What everyone agrees on is that 18 September 2011 saw Breivik said that the Knights Templar, as he described it earlier, is a glossy picture and under establishment. Can you be more specific when he has changed in the position until March. What does he change in March, which differs from what he has said] He says the more or less verbatim in March the same, we are agreed. But the fact that he has used the words of which has not led to a change in the way of communicating in general, as we understood later. I can not say he has not changed, but our experience of it struck out in full in March. The recognition of the way to communicate on the pompous, I think it was not fully present on 18 september because he conveyed his view of the uniform in the same way he talked about the Knights Templar in the past. [Defense Lippestad: - What we have agreed as well, is that he can explain that he lifted the Knights Templar in the beginning, and then took it down. Can you tell us about the beginning there were other factors in the explanation or the relationship between those who were especially in the beginning that was not so common. I can give you a keyword: negotiation] Yes, negotiations. [Defense Lippestad: - Can you tell us about it, how you and you looked at these negotiations] - On Utøya, as has been mentioned in court earlier, was accused early on to make any claims to explain to the police . I assume that is what you referring to? [Lippestad: - Yes, I thought of these practical things he wants.] Yes. It's not unusual that some demands in interview situations. What was especially the case here, was that we were so lucky that we had established a group interview, where we distinguished very clearly between the roles of the group. Those who took the examination, they had nothing to do with negotiations. I had nothing to do with it. It was completely separate from my role. NN had a full view of it and took care of all negotiations. I can say what I know, and there was some back and forth about the requirements that the accused had asked, that was it. But I do not quite understand how it affects hearing.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
There are many empty seats in the hall 250 in the day. Most people attending are journalists, but some affected and aid lawyers are also included. For many of the bereaved and survivors have the autopsy reports and witness statements from Utøya and government quarter been more important to get around than the police witnesses and expert witnesses.
11:29: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Defense Lippestad: You act now on behalf of the interrogation team. Have you discussed the accused at the beginning or perhaps made the KT network more dangerous than it really is, to achieve things in a negotiation? Of the type: If I get a printer, I tell nothing about this network, and it is dangerous. Assessed you as if we are to enter into negotiations or not?] We must remember the situation in Norway 22 and 23 July. Norway is under attack. It is a terribly uncertain situation. The key witness is the defendant. It was stated that the purpose of the attack was to weaken the state. It is clear that a man who has done this will be taken seriously. He does not need to blow something up networks to be heard. Therefore, we have not talked about it. [Defense Lippestad: - But is not intended to reveal any medvirkere] But back to your question: if the defendant had served to blow up their networks to be heard. We have not discussed. - [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Now you can in and of itself to answer for yourself, whether you've done your thoughts?] I have not thought of that idea personally. I do not know that others have done it, either. [Defend Geir Lippestad: You said Breivik has some knowledge, but some of it is superficial. When you go in depth revealed it. I know you have gone in depth with such as bomb experts in the neighboring room during questioning. Can you say something about his knowledge of explosives?] If we take specific about explosives, I'm no bomb expert and we brought in others to help. The bomb that he actually has his team has proven that he has to make. Our focus was whether he had help. We should have questioned it and had the assistance of chemists and bomb group in advance and on the way. But an assessment took place in parallel if we were to do that in Utøya and be questioned on the spot. As I said, I'm no expert, but I know that those were partly became impressed with the detail of his bomb. There was no need to conduct interviews on site.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion said Breivik's knowledge in many areas seemed to be superficial, and defends Geir Lippestad want to know what he could to build a bomb. During the interrogations they brought a bomb expert who could confirm that Breivik had knowledge to build a bomb. - About to build the bomb, at least, say onion.
11:36: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Defense Lippestad: - So, the experts believed this was the depth of knowledge to make a bomb] In making the bomb anyway. [Defense Lippestad: - You also mentioned that the "poor man's nuclear bomb." When I think of big states that are struggling to obtain it, but he explained what he meant by that? As he said, told KT network could provide] Yes, the "poor man's atomic bomb," it's not necessarily a nuclear bomb but a bomb with radioactive materials. [Defense Lippestad: - Yes, I will not tell what it is in the detail, but one might imagine it was actually a nuclear bomb that they could provide] [Lippestad gives the word to one of the other defenders] [Defense Isolated Ground: - The terms of his contact with other people in the questioning. If you have any idea of whether the defendant has been worried about disease and infection in contact with others?] No. [Defense Isolated Ground: - He has received various types of food, he expressed concern about infection and intoxication of what he has been questioned?] No. [The witness says Breivik has a different type of food than the one he received in prison]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Defender Isolated Ground begins to speak and ask onion has noticed that Breivik was particularly concerned about the infection when he is in contact with arrestforvarere, interviewing, and others. He has not. Grounded ask whether Breivik has responded to the infection in the food he gets in the questioning. - In the interview he would be junk, rather than the Fjordland diet he is on now, so it was rather the opposite, says onion. Among the elements of the first expert report that concludes that Breivik is unaccountable, it is mentioned that he was worried about infection and wore masks inside. Breivik has denied this and says he only did it once to avoid getting sick before a field competition in pistol shooting.
11:38: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Grounded: - Have you seen the defendant to make themselves meant to know what others think? I mean as purely supernatural phenomena.] I have not experienced. The defendant has described himself as a good seller, and seller as you can reach using some steps, but to read minds is not one of them. [Judge Arntzen: - Has the coordinating aid lawyers have any questions?] [Yvonne Mette Larsen: - Yes. The first interview that you led in August, the 9th or 8?] There were 9 august. [Larsen: - The impression you got from Breivik 9 august, there are some deviations from the way you perceive him today?] No, it is the same Breivik. I think he might have been a little more reserved with the Knights Templar, but it may have something with the setting to do. - [Lawyer Larsen: - Up to how many hours have a single interrogation lasted?] It was just gone up to excess of 11 hours. [Lawyer Larsen: - Has he shown any reaction when it is approaching that time?] Then I must emphasize that we have not been at a stretch. We have a long lunch break that has stretched into an hour and a half. But of course at the end of such questioning is a little gåen. The defendant says that he is a bit gåen. [Lawyer Larsen: - What he tends to respond when you ask how he is] that he is fine and that we would like to continue. [Lawyer Larsen: - How many hours have you spent with him?] Approximately 70 [Lawyer Larsen: - Have you formed any thoughts about his health condition?] Only in the popular sense. I remember that I personally responded to the defendant to give evidence about so many ugly acts in such a pragmatic way early in the interrogations. [Lawyer Larsen: - Have you considered if he had a need for health care?] No, no more (....) [Lawyer Larsen - If he had needed medical attention as you see it?] Then it is natural to reflect whether a person needs medical attention or not. It was not done before the first trial expert report came. [Lawyer Larsen: - When the report came, it was then made some efforts to adapt any questioning if he was psychotic?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Synne Sørheim take up when the other team and expert observers from Dikemark observed Breivik, as to whether he may have been påvriket of them before he changed his statement at the beginning of March. Onion has no answer to this, but Terje Tørrissen said that the observation team had not really started until Breivik changed testimony. If Breivik was affected, it had also come from the approximately five calls Aspaas and Tørrissen had with him before this time. Sørheim together with his colleague Torgeir Husby concluded that Breivik is unaccountable, while Tørrissen and his colleague Aspaas believes the opposite. Breivik himself has admitted that he has tailored his testimony to the first conclusion, because he wants to be judged sane.
11:43: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Our way of taking the examination is also tilapasset vulnerable witnesses. It was an assessment that the factors that were present did not affect the way we did the questioning. [Cute lawsuit Synne Sørheim: You went initially through various changes. What I wonder is whether you can put into the defendant's way to mention the Knights Templar. Thus, you can place it in relation to when they started talking with our colleagues on the other psychiatric report?] I do not have the dates with me. It is obviously relevant. Might help your colleagues? [Legal Expert Terje Dry Ice: The first call was 17.2. We had five or six calls in February. The team was to observe came in 29.2. The conversations are recorded on audio tape, and they are sometimes typed as they took place.] The answer is then that five or six meetings with them prior to our interview 1 March, and the team barely inside. [Legal Expert Terje Dry ice: There was little the team had done before. They had hardly met.] Then the possible influence have had to be in talks with the two experts. I see that it is relevant, even if it is a little out of my testimony
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh is interested in how the onion understood that Breivik testified about the killing of Utøya, as he seemed unmoved in court of his own cruel actions. For the onion, it was almost like Breivik described the film as he told of the time on Utøya. - When I left the interview room, it struck me, what are we talking about now? onion said. Breivik never showed signs of sorrow or remorse in the questioning about the murder of Utøya. Right Psychiatrist Torgeir Husby onion asks why he use touching the "pragmatic" about the way Breivik behaved in questioning about the murder of Utøya. - Is there a word you're in for, or it may come from somewhere else? - If I've picked up along the way do you mean? I took me in when I said it, responds onion. Breivik In questioning consistently used the word "pragmatic" to describe both himself and killing the actions he has committed.
11:47: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [prosecutor Bejer Engh: - You mentioned questions from Yvonne Larsen how you looked at him. You said that when he told you what he did on Utøya, he was pragmatic. Then I wonder if you could elaborate on how he was when he explained these killings. When you sit, and he alone] It's not the case, it is always at least one defense counsel present. But for me, the elimination of the defender. I'm not sure if pragmatic is the right word, but the defendant wished to convey as much as possible, while I want to get out as much as possible. When he told about the events at Utøya we use cognitive techniques to recall what happened. He says without the use of feelings about what happened, who was in a descriptive way as a movie. My focus throughout is to understand what he says and process it, and what more can I get out of the action. The victims and the actions were practically for us both, object in a story. When the defendant does not use big words, but only describe as it was in a movie where I am I and. When I go out of the room so it strikes me, "what have we done now" and "what are we talking about now." - [Engh: - But is it right, he talks about this as if he was talking about something completely trivial everyday? As if he tells you about their summer holidays?] No, it is much more intense than that. It is clear that these are events that are difficult to talk about, even for defendants. He has specified, that specifically talking about the first murder is hard to talk about, because it was difficult to implement. So it is much more intense than a summer celebration, that is. - [prosecutor Engh: - Showing he at any time that he is upset over this?] No, not as we see from the expression. But we hear him say that it was difficult for him to complete the action. But we see no evidence of this. But my job is not to assess the body language, but what he says. [The prosecutor Engh: - Do you have something to say about kroppsspåkret through all these hours?] I have not thought about it before I get questions about it. So that means that it is very unusual. He seems calm. [Right Psychiatrist Huseby: - The word pragmatic, there is a description you are in for, or think you may have a different background?] That I may have picked it up from the interrogations? I will not rule. [Right Psychiatrist Huseby: - Would you use another word, if you'd like to?] I understand that word to describe things that are made in an efficient and tactically. It's right on Utøya. It is possible a philologist would debate with me about it. If the word was naturally in my vocabulary until I started talking about this, it is hard to say.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
When Breivik is allowed to make any comments on Løken diploma, he sits at ease in his chair and smiles broadly to onion before he begins. - There are only a few minor comments, he says first.
11:51: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: You said bomb the group was impressed. Can you elaborate on that?] Impressed, well, yes .. The purpose was to reveal whether he had done this alone, or if there was more. He gave evidence of how things were made, where the boiling point of the thing was, and the program how much he had the use of a thing. [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: But it was not that the bomb was so complex?] What was complicated was the trigger. It was a challenging piece of work, apparently. [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: An earlier witness said that the bomb was not complex, namely.] This is not my field of competence, so I do not think that I should say much more about. [Defense Geir Lippestad: So, Breivik few comments.] [Judge Wenche Arntzen Elisabeth: Yes, some pretty quick, then.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik comments above about the onion Hadeland killings, and would like to emphasize that he believed drapsmenne militant nationalists. He speaks with a lower and milder voice than when he commented Morland testimony earlier today. Breivik also points out that the onion was right is in Breivik comment that used the word "expropriate" error. - It is wrong, the right word is the requisition. I make mistakes too, and I'm not afraid to admit it, he said. It's lunch time at 12:35. It's a tight schedule today, and Arntzen maintains that the court must be raised no later than 16:30. After lunch the three expert witnesses to talk about right-wing ideology, and all the witnesses sent by VGTV.
Anders Breivik Behring:
- You mentioned "Laser Man", as I have said is that there is an assumption that he is a militant nationalist based on information available, and not an assertion. In the case, ie, the statement that there should be 15,000 militant nationalists in Norway, I specified that it is 15,000 which is likely to be militant nationalists. But I have not said that people are ready with weapons. It is also true figure for the European 300,000. There are also individuals who are inclined to be militant extremists. The uniform of course I thought at first was totally unimportant in the grand sammehengen, but still important. - And rightly so specific, I do mistakes like everyone else, and that word, the use of "expropriation", it's wrong then. So I make the mistake and I, like everyone else. And I'm not afraid to admit it. [No more questions. Onions are done. Judge Arntzen prepare for the lunch break, and states that the court today has an absolute deadline at 16:30. She says that if the defendant has further comments on the upcoming witnesses, they shall be collected at the end of the day.] [Judge Arntzen: - When the court takes a break to five over half of one. It is a three quarter hour lunch break, it would hold.]
11:58: VG:
- The court pauses until 12:35.
- [The witness oath] [The prosecutor Bejer Engh: - You know a little what both defense counsel and we would like. You can start on your own. You can go through what you intend to speak and take questions afterwards] Yes, I can give a brief background on why I stand here. I have investigated organized crime in Oslo and investigating the most serious drug cases. In addition, I assisted the violent section of the questioning in homicide cases. The explanation here I will first give a little refresher on the basis for interrogations. Then I dropped three themes as it is desired that I should. It is the questioning group has considered how the defendant and the defendant acted and behaved under interrogation at Utøya. It was not a reconstruction, it was questioning. Avslutningvis I'll get into how the defendant has changed his way of getting in after a while.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Loken said that interrogation founders had to repeat to himself that the interrogations would be common interrogation in an unusual situation. They have questioned Breivik in 220 hours, and says Breivik has appeared as the same person during these interrogations that in court. Union believes that Breivik was more difficult to examine in court on issues such as Knights Templar and the alleged cells.
09:53: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Our aim is always to get as much reliable and verifiable information as possible. When NN was questioned 23 July, as she realized that this was difficult, and it was put into an interrogation team. [Rattles off members of the interrogation team.] With Asbjørn Rachlew as a consultant. I meet here as a representative, I feel, for interrogation team. We've all read through the explanation, but it told you with my voice. Our starting point is that we do, have done and would do the same in this case as in all other cases. And in other cases, we see the person we are interviewing a person as an individual and not as the act he has done.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Løken says Breivik be careful and ask for a hearing founders were tired, but never asked about how neither the family, mother or friends had it for 22 July.
09:54: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- It is because it is best to get a good conversation in the interrogations. We use the same methodology as in other hearings, and the same ethical guidelines and professional approach. We focus on that it would be a normal interview in a very unusual case. How are we questioning the group perceived the defendant? The main point to the NN, I would like to repeat. We have seen him in 220 hours. The main impression is that the defendant you see in court is the same we got to know during interrogation. He is a little more reserved when it comes to Knights Templar and the Norwegian cells. He would tell us 98 percent, but 2 percent, he would keep for themselves. In court we find that the defendant was a little more difficult to deal with than in questioning when it comes to Knights Templar. The defendant is patient and persistent. Interrogations have been somewhat heavy. He has compared himself to us in a proper manner. The defendant is aware, courteous and have a good, coherent language. - He is also conscious of caring for others in the interrogation room. Often we asked if he was tired, and he said no and that he was more worried about us. For we were too, tired. But he still never asked how it went with family, friends and her mother. He was aware of how he was perceived. He started the interview by asking interrogate if she had the unfortunate distinction of interrogating the biggest monster in the history of Norway since Quisling. He also talked about his CV, which we described as unimpressive and confronted him with that it would be strange if a terrorist network recruited him because of it. He said that we had forgotten the essential things, which he was elected in a school class and at work. We asked if he really thought it was significant, then he laughed a little and said he saw our point.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Løken says Breivik also questioning was told that his CV not vote rover's that he would be recruited to the Knights Templar, which according to him would change the history of Europe. Breivik pointed out then that the CV was missing several appointments from school and work, and was asked back if he thought it would be relevant to the Knights Templar. He then realized that how he appeared, and laughed at it, says onion. Breivik smiles from the dock when he hears this. Løken says Breivik usually had humor and self irony of socially accepted places in interrogations, and that he never joked about the case or his victims. At the same time experienced founders interrogation that he occasionally smiled at locations where it was not natural. - He said that it was a defense mechanism, it does not necessarily mean that something is good, explains the onion.
09:58: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- The defendant, he clearly distinguishes between the case and interviewing that person has not always had that luxury. We have sequences along the way which can be intense where we are going and ask challenging questions, but when the sequence is over, it's over. When we have had break has accused joked and a pleasant tone. He has both humor and self irony, he jokes with the case or not their victims. He does mainly fun of themselves, often beklostning of psychiatrists and the first forensic psychiatric statement. The humor fits into the social sammehengen which it appears. He smiled occasionally during interrogation in places where we found it unusual, and when we asked why. He has since said that it is a kind of defense mechanism and a way to cope with feelings. That does not necessarily mean that he thinks it is good.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion and questioning the team got the impression that Breivik was determined to perform in talks with parties questioning, especially during interrogation at Utøya.
10:01: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- We have the impression that the defendant is very good at focusing on ... So, he's very focused on the details, he focuses on. His attention to detail, I have very seldom seen someone who has read this carefully questioning her, for example. But while he has not so much focus on the overriding things. I do not know if it has been up that the defendant is analytical, but I can say anything about it. He will often know why we ask what we ask. We must constantly be aware of the way to follow up on those things. We were soon left with the impression that the defendant wishes to perform. He wants to be good in the talks with us.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion Breivik perceived as vain in the questioning. When he was brought into the interrogation room the first time, he was wearing a t-shirt that he got after the clothes he had during the massacre of Utøya were seized. Breivik then asked if the media would get access to pictures of him in the tea outfit. - So he turned to the mirror in the interrogation room and directed the weld, said onion. Onions also says that he would not be wearing any slippers during interrogation because they saw "so sucks out". Breivik smiles broadly to onion when he let this room.
10:04: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- It was again an additional challenge that we were particularly aware of Utøya. The desire to present, combined with the desire to be analytical, he made us fit very well in our questioning later not to ask leading questions. The defendant could draw a conclusion about where we wanted to go, and constructed a response that is not necessarily correct. As you have noticed also in court, the defendant uses a lot of percentages. A special episode from 23.7. The accused were given clothes Utøya, and his own clothes were seized. The first thing to be said when Breivik enters the interrogation room: "Will the media have access to what I look like?" Then he looked toward the mirror and put one on the right place. [Breivik smiles.] He did not have late he got paid for that sucks out. If he were to move in avhørsrommem he checked several times checked how he looked at his hair. We see him as very confident about their own knowledge and he conveys his knowledge very convincing. I must say that in the beginning, we were almost blinded by the way of expression and the use of foreign words: Delegitimere, deconstruction, expropriate. These words were used in unusual contexts. F. eks.ekspropriere - forced surrender, was used in unusual contexts.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion said that interrogation team was first a little dazzled by Breivik's speech and apparent wealth of knowledge, but it soon became clear that much of the knowledge was superficial. At the same time the police had chosen a strategy to verify a lot of knowledge which he actually had was not the most important, the important thing was to gather information. - Sometimes I wanted to proceed with questions to see what knowledge really bottomed out, he said.
10:05: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- I allow myself to read two examples. He said it was like, "the old warheads containing plutonium, most were secure, but some were expropriated by the Russian mafia and sold to terrorists." [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Is it okay that he read from this?] - Yes I was maybe a little offensive now. [Defense Geir Lippestad:] - It's okay. There are good examples. - The second example was that he also said "that it might have been appropriate to expropriate a flight from Fornebu". We know what he means, but it is unusual contexts he uses words in. He norwegianised also a good deal of English words. - As we revealed that the knowledge was a bit superficial, but based on the way things were passed on, we had to have knowledge of the issues the defendant talked about, too few follow up and verify a. The first two thirds of the interviews we had not focused on following up what he said, but rather to gather knowledge. There were times I wanted to follow up more closely, but we had chosen a strategy and not go that way. He said that Wikipedia was his main source of knowledge. I particularly noted that there have been questions about the police have been accused of lying or not. It's a question I think is terribly difficult to answer.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Løken find it difficult to say whether Breivik has lied under questioning. He has the impression that he adapts information to their worldview, even when it comes to historical information. However, it is difficult for interrogation holders to know who is lying when it is a difference between Brevik and friends' versions of things that have happened to him through life.
10:07: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Like everyone else in the investigation as we verify a defendant's what has been said, and it's a bit of job interviews. The day before yesterday it was the testimony from friends of the defendant. They explained the yes on various episodes that the defendant also testified about. And we recognize that yes there are quite a large distance between the different perceptions. [The prosecutor Engh: - Do you think these violent episodes?] Right, as an example. We have confronted the defendant with this, but when he stands on his story, saying that the other must remember wrong, or the like. About when the defendant is lying, or whether this is part of his current reality, I can not answer. Or if the other is lying. This also applies to other things. - Knights Templar, he will not explain so much about. He keeps on his travels on. If this is a lie or his reality now, we take no position on. We see that the defendant adapt things that happen to their vision. He has even said that in connection with the lecture notes he has taken the historical events and used them subjectively to show his vision. There was an article in a single copy newspaper based on police sources, where it was that Breivik was not particularly intelligent. We were skeptical as to how this would affect the interrogations. - Nevertheless, the defendants failed to make it into something positive. He thought that it could do for others that would create a campaign thought that they did not have to be so smart to carry it. Another example of adaptation is called other extreme-right, after he was arrested. He described the laser as a man who would execute people who looked like Muslims. Laser man the stubborn refusal afterwards to be racist. It is difficult to see how the defendant can establish that he would execute people who look like Muslims. When I described the defendant as we have seen him. I will discuss how the interview went on Utøya.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
When Breivik was asked Hadeland killings during interrogation at Utøya, he said he did not know them. In retrospect, he imdilertid said he is aware that they were carried out by militant nationalists. Breivik have been allowed to give evidence in a further one hour during the case, and has announced that he will come with a list of known attacks by militant nationalists in Norway since the war. Hadeland killings occurred in ferbuar 1981, after a dispute over payment for the weapons theft from the Home Guard. The two men who were killed were shot by 29 shots, according to wikipedia. While the onion defends himself, whispering Odd Ivar Green to Vibeke Hein Bæra, who sits on the bench in front with Breivik, that he will have konatkt with Breivik. Breivik leans back against the back row and get a short message from Greenland.
10:14: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- So I intend to go into how the questioning went on Utøya defendants then. We made the first interrogation at the police station on Utøya. It was mt first meeting with the accused in the interrogation room. Chance made it so that I was gone 22 July, and when I came back to Oslo one week later, I had not pursued the matter in the media. I had no knowledge of the island before I started and had not read the police reports, but only images of the island and it was an advantage. It made sure that I asked many questions of the defendant to understand, as did the defendant explained a lot. He said many details. [Judge Arntzen: - Excuse me, when was the interview?] There were 9 and 10 august. The defendant was calm, no emotion, and the victims were the objects of his explanation. - When we were out on Utøya it became a bit complex procedure, but we ended up there, and I sat together with the defendant and his counsel in a bus Utvika. And when he said that he was a little worried about how this would go, and he was a little nervous that he was going out on Utøya, but he wanted to get out there. Because he wanted to explain what had happened. He was put in the same context as the day, the same movements, the same places, the same smells, etc. Because he was a little nervous, so we started first on the pier in the country side and spent some time there before we went in the boat. On the way out as he explained in detail about what happened there.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion, the main impression Breivik interrogation of Utøya (often referred to as reconstruction), was that Breivik tried to remember as much as possible of what he did during the massacre. Onion did not know details about the murders, and so can not set fixed Breivik on things that did not vote.
10:17: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- The defendant said he was concerned to explain as much as possible. He explained in detail and continuous. He collaborated and illustrated physically what he did. There were more details on Utøya than it did inside the interrogation room. Since I had no prior knowledge of what had happened on Utøya, I've realized in retrospect that the defendant has told the same thing out on Utøya as it actually happened. However, there were errors in some places. He had a little trouble remembering the geography of the island and chronology. Some incidents were described in detail, but the wrong physical space. At least three times, while we were there, so we discovered that the defendant until the reasoned response, instead of saying that he did not remember. Thus he must be analytical and have a desire to perform under the explanations. Our main experience was that he tried to remember as much and as detailed as possible when we were there. - [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Can you say whether there was much he did not remember? Was the sequences in time and place?] I did not know the details then, and have chosen not to have it. So I do not know. But when the investigation was finished, we considered whether we needed a new interrogation. It did not. So the answer is probably in it. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Here the court said a lot about Utøya. But the confrontation on some things he says often that he has read it afterwards. How much has he learned in hindsight] I do not actually. I have not read the report. I have included not read about the sacrifice, because I have interacted with Breivik and focused on him. But by questioning people with the skills have been present, although we did not have a full view of the island. My impression is that he remembers more of what happened, than he can not remember what happened. - [Judge Arntzen: - Was it more than once he said "no, this I do not remember"?] I would think, but I remember any specific episodes now. I can answer at a later date. [The prosecutor Bejer Engh - I've heard a lot about the Café building, but did you have any impression that he remembers in detail what happened there?] Inside the Café building was the three episodes that I referred to earlier where he constructed a response, rather than He replied that he did not remember. [Defense Lippestad was there during the interrogation of the island and told the court that he wants that goes into detail on this topic] I agree that we do it. [Bejer Engh: - I want to know what Breivik remembered the time, and match it with what he remembers in court today. Because he has access to all the documents before he has come here] I can tell the three episodes that were different. - The reason I have bitten my mark in these episodes here, is that it is the three times he told himself, but he actually remembered it. The first is when we came into the café building. When the defendant came in, he said "yes, here I executed four pieces." Then he illustrated how he had done so. So I say, "Why do you remember that?" "Yes, here it is the blood stains on the floor, so I must have killed someone," he said then. "Yes, that's right, but it can not be that someone has been injured or ripped here?" And then he said yes, it could vote, "I remember nothing from this room."
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Both the prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh and defends Geir Lippestad interested in going into more depth on what Breivik really remember from the massacre, and what he has read up on later. The onion tells in detail how he testified about the massacre in the Café building when they were back on Utøya. Løken Breivik explains that often reasoned to where he had killed the children by how Café building looked like, for example, because he saw blood tracking or windows covered in plastic. In some cases, did not mean he killed someone he thought. At the same time be able to tell Breivik room detail some of the murders, but it was not necessarily the place where the murders occurred.
10:24: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- As we went further into the main hall. When he describes that the piano was down to the right once you arrive. He described that in detail how the killings were carried out. Then he describes the diagonal of the room as he reacted to the posters to the AUF, which hung on one wall. Then he described several other killings, including one who was hiding behind a microphone stand. He said he was aware of attacks from the sides. In the dining hall, he told in detail how he killed several in the corner. But he does not remember anything more from the room than he had been there. We are looking out and then into the entrance kiosk. When the accused says: I must have killed someone through the door. There was a door that was covered with black plastic. Then I ask: What is the reason why you remember it? There are black plastic, so it means I must have shot through here. Several times in Utøya he describes in detail the events, but they must have been farther away.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
The court takes a break and be back at approx. 10:40.
10:27: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: When it comes to the cafe building and the large hall as he spoke about a piano you. Was it there? How it was ... No. There was nothing there when we were there [prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: But it was there on 22 July, as he claimed?] Well ... I know .. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Okay. So you do not know about it?] No. Then I go back to what I will say today. It's also about defendants have changed their testimony, which has been the theme here. I have made a choice, I'm sitting with 270 pages, so I have taken what is easiest to notice. It is about the manifesto and the Knights Templar. [The prosecutor Svein Holden: I'm sorry to interrupt. But we should take a break now, if we are to catch that before lunch.] It is right to break 10.40.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
He chats with medforsvarer Isolated Ground, still with his hands in handcuffs. onion must wait until arrestforvarerne get by Breivik handcuffs so that he gets settled. onion will now go on to explain about the interrogations have had the Knights Templar.
10:47: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [The judge said to the onion that he is now entering a new topic] I was just reminded of one thing in connection with Utøya. When we visited Utøya with the defendant as the island was completely cleared, everything was taken away. Things from the victim and the deceased was removed and Café building was completely cleared and it was washed away the remains of what had happened, which may have influenced the memory image of the defendant when the furniture was removed. What we now must begin is that observed changes in connection with the compendium and the Knights Templar. - There is then an issue that the court's players have asked me to say. Seen as how the defendants made statements about the compendium. And I will also later say something about the two terms he has used on its own. The defendant has told us is that he has not talked about the Knights Templar other than those of the Knights Templar. And he's an exception to moderate posts of the compendium and published it online to get comments on it, and input. But what about the Knights Templar, he has not spoken to anyone about, before he comes to questioning at Utøya. It is the first time when he talks about Knights Templar in a social context. When he talks to us in interviews, so we have tried not to act in it. But it is impossible in a social context, not to give any feedback in the form of facial expressions, body language etc.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik has even said that he has never talked to anyone about the Knights Templar before being questioned July 22. After 10:08 Breivik had talked to the experts the first time and gave interviews holders the impression that he had received feedback on what he told them. After 15.11 the letter and the restraining of the letters and visitor control, and 29.11, the first expert report that concludes that Breivik is paranoid schizophrenic and the criminally insane. Later, he also gained access to the media. Løken stressed that all these things may have affected Breivik when he made statements about the Knights Templar.
10:52: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- 10.8 2011 - So a couple of weeks after the events, the first meeting with rettspsykiatrene. He has received some feedback on how he has been uppp made by them. 15.11 was the restraining order lifted. He gained access to the letter, which was read by the police first, but it's still an impact source. 29.11, the first trial quaint report presented. Some findings in the report and the conclusion was presented to him. Because it contained references to interrogation, he was unable to access the full report before 12/13/11 The defendant had access to the full report and access to media. Then he was interacting with others in prison and observation team that the other legal experts, the team brought in I will first describe how he described the Knights Templar, the compendium early in the case, then a summary, and saw how he looked at the two later in sk and as the terms commander and (...).
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion Breivik says that in the beginning talking about the Knights Templar as an organization consisting of very talented people who were "extremely intelligent". He thought they were between 113 and 80 people in Europe, that they would eventually get the factory capacity and ability to create a "poor man's nuclear bomb." - This was what we had to deal with the Knights Templar in the early interrogations say onion.
10:55: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- When the defendant in the beginning was to tell of Knights Templar, he said that he was cellekommenadør and that it was 15,000 milli Aunt nationalists in Norway. The fact that he was the commander meant that there were at least two members in Norway, and he had sympathizers in the PST and the authorities. When he was arrested he said he was commander of the resistance movement, which he also talked about as the anti-communist resistance movement, and he said he thought he might be elected Grand Master in Europe after the operation. He then said that it is special about Knights Templar was that they focused on getting hold of a few extremely talented individuals, who were not on watch lists and kept a low profile. He said they had 80 members, but everyone was extremely potent. Later he said that it was a tiny bit organization with 15-30 members, but he thought that it had grown by several hundred after the operation. He has since said in between 13 and 80 members. [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: In Europe?] Yes. He describes, however, that it will be the largest revolutionary organization right wing in Europe. They were to obtain laboratory and build a "poor man's nuclear bomb."
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
While onion explains, says psychiatrist Torgeir Husby something to his colleague Synne Sørheim. She nods and keeps notes on her laptop on her lap. Both Terje Tørrissen and Agnar Aspaas also sits and takes notes.
10:58: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- When it comes to the compendium as defendant explained that he traveled from London in 2002 with approximately 50-60 pages and notes that he had given a lot in addition to the notes. On this basis he made the compendium. It would be a compendium of the new direction of the national conservative. In interview the defendant said that he had spent four years full-time on the manifest. He said first that he wrote the 2006 to 2007 or 2007 to 2008, and that he was finished in October 2009. It was the most expensive he had done at a cost of two million. The defendant's task in the organization, which he described as relatively large and strong was writing the compendium where the presentation and distribution was important. - The same day as he said that he had made a post in the compendium, a part-document to his defense counsel use in the trial. He would also bring along three sides of the compendium in court to being held in custody. So he made it clear what the compendium was, and that it was not made for Norway, that in a way it was designed for an English audience. He also said that the compendium was the operation itself, Utøya was just fireworks. However, in the same interview, after the defendant was pushed a little on what kind of background material he had brought from London, and when he said that after all this was only a draft. Not a finished product, but a version.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Interrogation team realized early on that the distribution of the so-called compendium was the most important for Breivik. He talked a lot about how much time and money he had used to create it, and that he had been asked to make the Knights Templar.
11:02: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- It is true insofar as the defendant wrote the manifesto itself, that he wants people with the right skills who can develop the compendium he has written. Facts about the Knights Templar, he constantly refers to the compendium, "I've already written about in the compendium." A summary of how we perceived Knights Templar in the beginning: He is the leader in Norway and after the operation he wonders if he can be elected head of KT in Europe. It wants to become a pan-European organization. They have up to 800 members now and it is 15,000 militant nationalists only in Norway, and it is symptatisører within the police and PST. Breivik talking about the "poor man's nuclear bomb." The two other Norwegian cells and the remaining cells in Europe is described in a manner that they are gifted with implementing the will and ability. This organization has accused the task to write a compendium, to collect from the reactionary right wing in Europe. The distribution of the compendium was the main target of 22.7 events. That he at an early stage will use parts of it in an early trial, could mean that he was responsible for the compendium as it was written there and then.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik testified about his uniform before he got to know the conclusion of the forensic psychiatric statement. - He explained fairly colorful, says onion. After he learned that he be declared insane, he chose, however, to downplay the significance of the uniform strong. He also said that in hindsight, he has considered whether he should have brult second adjectives than he had in kompnediet. Psychiatrist Torgeir Husby leans forward and stares at Breivik when the onion tells it.
11:03: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Then we go to that change. As has emerged in court, then the word "glossy picture" first used in interrogations 10/11/2011. He says what he has said what he said to give a glossy picture of the Knights Templar, but the organization actually is under establishment. So he uses the word first turn 01/03/2012. Then said he also "pompous" for the first time. He explains himself later still pretty colorful on the uniform before he becomes familiar with the psychiatric report. What he said about the uniform he uses later to explain what he means by saying he "spoke pompous." When he found out about the irresponsible report, he said immediately that he had to become more defensive in interviews. And maybe he should have used other adjectives in the manifest. He gained access to the media and report the same day.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
As Breivik also testified in court before, he claimed to police that he had tried on a "pompous presentation" of the manifest and Knights Templar, in a bid to get more recruitment.
11:07: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- where he talked about expressing themselves shamelessly. He had chosen at the beginning of the case, a strategy to talk about the Knights Templar in a pompous way, he said both interviewing and court savvy. When he read the media that he had communicated in a way that was not understood correctly by others. He realized he had to change the strategy. He had been isolated and did not understand how he had been conceived before he got access to the media and the forensic psychiatric statement. For the police it was part of an interrogation 1 March 2012 that we really noticed the change in the defendant's way of talking about the Knights Templar. It was the first interrogation we should have a line change and went closer to the theme. But I would stress that it was defendant himself who went into detail on his way to talk about the Knights Templar, until he was confronted. So it was questioning the 1st March 8 and we had a new experience of the Knights Templar and the compendium. The pompous mediation had not worked, so he had deliberately toned down how he expresses himself. - What I got to know now is that the Knights Templar is a very small group of people with a common ideology. What he has described in the compendium is that it is an international environment. He has only met with four others, two in Norway. This stands in contrast to when he assumed that there were 130 members. The defendant claimed during interrogation that the network exists, but it is described in such a way that they want it to be. The compendium was then presented as a glossy picture, like a pompous account of reality, and so it could be. The defendant understands that there are many who think the compendium is ridiculous, but his problem is that he has been alone. - At the same time he emphasizes that the compendium is written for a specific audience and it is not for everyone to understand. The defendant ends up writing himself a cell and the compendium was the target audience. To call the organization KT was a public relations strategy. They went into the identity because it was salgsbar. Then I go into the concept of civil war. In the interview on 22.7 Utøya said defendants nine times that civil war had started. Norway is in civil war. The next day, said he this was the start of a civil war. He said during interrogation 22.11 that they consider the conflict today as a very long civil war that will last up to 70 years. It began in 1999 when the Bondevik government approved the invasion of Serbia. The defendant has stated that a civil war, as it is perceived by most is that people running around the streets with Kalashnikov as they do in the Middle East. 08.03.12, he says that he has never said that it is a civil war. We are in Phase 1 This means that there may be terrorist attacks. He has never said that we are in a civil war, but that it could develop into a civil war in the conventional sense, as he has described in the compendium, and as was stated in court yesterday.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik has repeatedly talked about the civil war in Europe, but eventually clarifies that he does not believe there is talk of a conventional civil war, but that there is a danger of this. He made a similar moderation when he used the word cell commander, as he stopped using the 29.11 - the same day as an expert witness report came. After this he used the term foot soldier. Onions go through the changes in Breivik's explanations, where the biggest change happened after he had learned of the conclusion of the first two experts. onion believe the clearest two changes in Breivik's explanation was 1 and 8 March 2012, when he testified about the Knights Templar. He described himself as more like the average, and the recruitment process to the Knights Templar to be more random.
11:14: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- As to the concept of commander. I'll go into that. Already in connection with telephone calls to police from Utøya, as he calls himself that. I think it was in the anti-communist resistance movement. In questioning the next day, he describes himself as that. He says he is cell commander and that there are two other under him. 11/09/2011 the word "foot soldier" was first mentioned when he says he does not want is a soldier in the traditional context. The next time he mentions the word, he says that he is just a foot soldier. He also says later that "yes, I am Commander cell. This means that I lead two others, and not an army of thousands. "The word is not said again. But the foot soldier is mentioned again twice in March 2012, and also here in court, as far as I understand. What I can confirm is that the defendant's way of explaining himself to have changed, he even said straight out that he needed it after he became aware of irresponsible report in December, and that "the strategy to be pompous, had failed . "The biggest change in the interrogation came in March 2012. They were prominent. - I can only briefly say that for us who sat in the back room on the 1st March as we all reacted with amazement at the way things were passed on. We looked at each other and said "what was what happened." There was another person sitting there. Sorry, there was not another person but the way he passed on was really transformed when he talked about the Knights Templar. Compendium was initially stated that he had laid down several years and was the main reason for the operation and procedures. Now it's a product that would sell a network that was being established. The defendant actually said on one occasion that the compendium was not important. Ever conclusion: the most significant changes took place on 1 March and 8 March. The core of what the defendant has said has been fixed and that is that he has visited a Serb in Liberia and went to an establishment meeting in London and was a proxy for the Serb. He met other people in London during the meeting. The defendant was one of two who was commissioned to write the lecture notes and design principles to the Knights Templar based on info from London. The defendant has gone to Balitkum, there are two cells in Norway and he is the head of the. Everything in the manifest is true and it has accused almost all the way, albeit expressed in different ways, in interviews and also here. - [Engh: - As I have just a couple of follow-up question for you. We've all been a little concerned about it when he starts to use the word "glossy picture" and "pompous." So I understand that he for the first time, 18 October, have used the word "glossy picture" of Knights Templar. But then you say he is a few days later explained on his uniform, and then use the term "colorful". What is it?] We went through piece by piece uniform and medals, and it was described in a way that struck a balance from such defendant had explained about the Knights Templar in the past. [Engh: - So there was no difference from how he talked about the Knights Templar before?] No, I would rather say that it was in the same line. He even said that it would be disrespectful to wear the uniform in the interrogation room, because he had such great respect for the uniform. - he would not put on it because he had respect for the uniform. [The prosecutor Engh: - Was he still interested in wanting to have it on during a trial?] I do not think so. [The prosecutor Engh: - So you have told that the very nature of the first expert report, he gets access to in December. The first marked difference you notice in March. What happens in the period between December and March?] I have also tried to think through when I have prepared me. It is consistent is that this is very much about the Knights Templar. Although there is a theme, it would appear all the way up. It must almost be the answer to that. [The prosecutor Engh: - If I'm going to summarize: He is another way to pass on. The scope of the Knights Templar. Are there any related to the use of the uniform?] We have not talked much about the uniform. He believes it is one of the teams have forwarded the the pompous about. [The prosecutor Engh: - Changed his view of himself in March, who he is and what he can or can not?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion said he got the impression that Breivik had not expected to be known insane, but that it is difficult to say whether he was surprised.
11:23: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Previously, both the defendant described himself as very intelligent, and described based on the criteria of the Knight Templar that he would keep it in order to get into. When we deal with it in March, so the selection is rather described as random, that he had average intelligence, and only did so well at school. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Early in the case he spoke of civil war, but said he had never said it later?] Defendant his words intact. It's hard to take someone in a lie, as I said. The way things are passed on makes us perceive things in a way, and so is it that we think "yes, that's correct, but ..." He says, for example, straight out that we are in civil war, but then the later phase 1 and not the way we think about it. That he never meant conventional civil war, which he explains in March. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Did he express surprise over how we look at him when he got the media and report? Did you get any impression of it?] - I got the impression that he is not expected to be known irresponsible. If he was surprised or not I should not say. But that message did not reach out as he hoped, is the recognition that he was surprised. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: As I have not further questions.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lippestad want to know how it is related to that already Breivik 08.10 - ie before the conclusion of the first two expert witnesses were ready - said he had conveyed Knights Templar as a glossy picture. Løken believes the defendant is not at this time had the full understanding of how he was perceived, especially because he did this with a detailed explanation of the uniform of the Knights Templar. He holds fast therefore in that the big change came in March this year, after Breivik was declared utliregenlig. Lippestad argues that Breivik described the KT network as "more dangerous" than it was, to achieve benefits that computer through negotiations. - It is clear that a man who has carried out what we know has happened, such a man is taken seriously and a man like that does not blow up a network to be heard, answer onion.
11:27: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Defense Lippestad: - What everyone agrees on is that 18 September 2011 saw Breivik said that the Knights Templar, as he described it earlier, is a glossy picture and under establishment. Can you be more specific when he has changed in the position until March. What does he change in March, which differs from what he has said] He says the more or less verbatim in March the same, we are agreed. But the fact that he has used the words of which has not led to a change in the way of communicating in general, as we understood later. I can not say he has not changed, but our experience of it struck out in full in March. The recognition of the way to communicate on the pompous, I think it was not fully present on 18 september because he conveyed his view of the uniform in the same way he talked about the Knights Templar in the past. [Defense Lippestad: - What we have agreed as well, is that he can explain that he lifted the Knights Templar in the beginning, and then took it down. Can you tell us about the beginning there were other factors in the explanation or the relationship between those who were especially in the beginning that was not so common. I can give you a keyword: negotiation] Yes, negotiations. [Defense Lippestad: - Can you tell us about it, how you and you looked at these negotiations] - On Utøya, as has been mentioned in court earlier, was accused early on to make any claims to explain to the police . I assume that is what you referring to? [Lippestad: - Yes, I thought of these practical things he wants.] Yes. It's not unusual that some demands in interview situations. What was especially the case here, was that we were so lucky that we had established a group interview, where we distinguished very clearly between the roles of the group. Those who took the examination, they had nothing to do with negotiations. I had nothing to do with it. It was completely separate from my role. NN had a full view of it and took care of all negotiations. I can say what I know, and there was some back and forth about the requirements that the accused had asked, that was it. But I do not quite understand how it affects hearing.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
There are many empty seats in the hall 250 in the day. Most people attending are journalists, but some affected and aid lawyers are also included. For many of the bereaved and survivors have the autopsy reports and witness statements from Utøya and government quarter been more important to get around than the police witnesses and expert witnesses.
11:29: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Defense Lippestad: You act now on behalf of the interrogation team. Have you discussed the accused at the beginning or perhaps made the KT network more dangerous than it really is, to achieve things in a negotiation? Of the type: If I get a printer, I tell nothing about this network, and it is dangerous. Assessed you as if we are to enter into negotiations or not?] We must remember the situation in Norway 22 and 23 July. Norway is under attack. It is a terribly uncertain situation. The key witness is the defendant. It was stated that the purpose of the attack was to weaken the state. It is clear that a man who has done this will be taken seriously. He does not need to blow something up networks to be heard. Therefore, we have not talked about it. [Defense Lippestad: - But is not intended to reveal any medvirkere] But back to your question: if the defendant had served to blow up their networks to be heard. We have not discussed. - [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Now you can in and of itself to answer for yourself, whether you've done your thoughts?] I have not thought of that idea personally. I do not know that others have done it, either. [Defend Geir Lippestad: You said Breivik has some knowledge, but some of it is superficial. When you go in depth revealed it. I know you have gone in depth with such as bomb experts in the neighboring room during questioning. Can you say something about his knowledge of explosives?] If we take specific about explosives, I'm no bomb expert and we brought in others to help. The bomb that he actually has his team has proven that he has to make. Our focus was whether he had help. We should have questioned it and had the assistance of chemists and bomb group in advance and on the way. But an assessment took place in parallel if we were to do that in Utøya and be questioned on the spot. As I said, I'm no expert, but I know that those were partly became impressed with the detail of his bomb. There was no need to conduct interviews on site.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion said Breivik's knowledge in many areas seemed to be superficial, and defends Geir Lippestad want to know what he could to build a bomb. During the interrogations they brought a bomb expert who could confirm that Breivik had knowledge to build a bomb. - About to build the bomb, at least, say onion.
11:36: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Defense Lippestad: - So, the experts believed this was the depth of knowledge to make a bomb] In making the bomb anyway. [Defense Lippestad: - You also mentioned that the "poor man's nuclear bomb." When I think of big states that are struggling to obtain it, but he explained what he meant by that? As he said, told KT network could provide] Yes, the "poor man's atomic bomb," it's not necessarily a nuclear bomb but a bomb with radioactive materials. [Defense Lippestad: - Yes, I will not tell what it is in the detail, but one might imagine it was actually a nuclear bomb that they could provide] [Lippestad gives the word to one of the other defenders] [Defense Isolated Ground: - The terms of his contact with other people in the questioning. If you have any idea of whether the defendant has been worried about disease and infection in contact with others?] No. [Defense Isolated Ground: - He has received various types of food, he expressed concern about infection and intoxication of what he has been questioned?] No. [The witness says Breivik has a different type of food than the one he received in prison]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Defender Isolated Ground begins to speak and ask onion has noticed that Breivik was particularly concerned about the infection when he is in contact with arrestforvarere, interviewing, and others. He has not. Grounded ask whether Breivik has responded to the infection in the food he gets in the questioning. - In the interview he would be junk, rather than the Fjordland diet he is on now, so it was rather the opposite, says onion. Among the elements of the first expert report that concludes that Breivik is unaccountable, it is mentioned that he was worried about infection and wore masks inside. Breivik has denied this and says he only did it once to avoid getting sick before a field competition in pistol shooting.
11:38: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Grounded: - Have you seen the defendant to make themselves meant to know what others think? I mean as purely supernatural phenomena.] I have not experienced. The defendant has described himself as a good seller, and seller as you can reach using some steps, but to read minds is not one of them. [Judge Arntzen: - Has the coordinating aid lawyers have any questions?] [Yvonne Mette Larsen: - Yes. The first interview that you led in August, the 9th or 8?] There were 9 august. [Larsen: - The impression you got from Breivik 9 august, there are some deviations from the way you perceive him today?] No, it is the same Breivik. I think he might have been a little more reserved with the Knights Templar, but it may have something with the setting to do. - [Lawyer Larsen: - Up to how many hours have a single interrogation lasted?] It was just gone up to excess of 11 hours. [Lawyer Larsen: - Has he shown any reaction when it is approaching that time?] Then I must emphasize that we have not been at a stretch. We have a long lunch break that has stretched into an hour and a half. But of course at the end of such questioning is a little gåen. The defendant says that he is a bit gåen. [Lawyer Larsen: - What he tends to respond when you ask how he is] that he is fine and that we would like to continue. [Lawyer Larsen: - How many hours have you spent with him?] Approximately 70 [Lawyer Larsen: - Have you formed any thoughts about his health condition?] Only in the popular sense. I remember that I personally responded to the defendant to give evidence about so many ugly acts in such a pragmatic way early in the interrogations. [Lawyer Larsen: - Have you considered if he had a need for health care?] No, no more (....) [Lawyer Larsen - If he had needed medical attention as you see it?] Then it is natural to reflect whether a person needs medical attention or not. It was not done before the first trial expert report came. [Lawyer Larsen: - When the report came, it was then made some efforts to adapt any questioning if he was psychotic?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Synne Sørheim take up when the other team and expert observers from Dikemark observed Breivik, as to whether he may have been påvriket of them before he changed his statement at the beginning of March. Onion has no answer to this, but Terje Tørrissen said that the observation team had not really started until Breivik changed testimony. If Breivik was affected, it had also come from the approximately five calls Aspaas and Tørrissen had with him before this time. Sørheim together with his colleague Torgeir Husby concluded that Breivik is unaccountable, while Tørrissen and his colleague Aspaas believes the opposite. Breivik himself has admitted that he has tailored his testimony to the first conclusion, because he wants to be judged sane.
11:43: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Our way of taking the examination is also tilapasset vulnerable witnesses. It was an assessment that the factors that were present did not affect the way we did the questioning. [Cute lawsuit Synne Sørheim: You went initially through various changes. What I wonder is whether you can put into the defendant's way to mention the Knights Templar. Thus, you can place it in relation to when they started talking with our colleagues on the other psychiatric report?] I do not have the dates with me. It is obviously relevant. Might help your colleagues? [Legal Expert Terje Dry Ice: The first call was 17.2. We had five or six calls in February. The team was to observe came in 29.2. The conversations are recorded on audio tape, and they are sometimes typed as they took place.] The answer is then that five or six meetings with them prior to our interview 1 March, and the team barely inside. [Legal Expert Terje Dry ice: There was little the team had done before. They had hardly met.] Then the possible influence have had to be in talks with the two experts. I see that it is relevant, even if it is a little out of my testimony
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh is interested in how the onion understood that Breivik testified about the killing of Utøya, as he seemed unmoved in court of his own cruel actions. For the onion, it was almost like Breivik described the film as he told of the time on Utøya. - When I left the interview room, it struck me, what are we talking about now? onion said. Breivik never showed signs of sorrow or remorse in the questioning about the murder of Utøya. Right Psychiatrist Torgeir Husby onion asks why he use touching the "pragmatic" about the way Breivik behaved in questioning about the murder of Utøya. - Is there a word you're in for, or it may come from somewhere else? - If I've picked up along the way do you mean? I took me in when I said it, responds onion. Breivik In questioning consistently used the word "pragmatic" to describe both himself and killing the actions he has committed.
11:47: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [prosecutor Bejer Engh: - You mentioned questions from Yvonne Larsen how you looked at him. You said that when he told you what he did on Utøya, he was pragmatic. Then I wonder if you could elaborate on how he was when he explained these killings. When you sit, and he alone] It's not the case, it is always at least one defense counsel present. But for me, the elimination of the defender. I'm not sure if pragmatic is the right word, but the defendant wished to convey as much as possible, while I want to get out as much as possible. When he told about the events at Utøya we use cognitive techniques to recall what happened. He says without the use of feelings about what happened, who was in a descriptive way as a movie. My focus throughout is to understand what he says and process it, and what more can I get out of the action. The victims and the actions were practically for us both, object in a story. When the defendant does not use big words, but only describe as it was in a movie where I am I and. When I go out of the room so it strikes me, "what have we done now" and "what are we talking about now." - [Engh: - But is it right, he talks about this as if he was talking about something completely trivial everyday? As if he tells you about their summer holidays?] No, it is much more intense than that. It is clear that these are events that are difficult to talk about, even for defendants. He has specified, that specifically talking about the first murder is hard to talk about, because it was difficult to implement. So it is much more intense than a summer celebration, that is. - [prosecutor Engh: - Showing he at any time that he is upset over this?] No, not as we see from the expression. But we hear him say that it was difficult for him to complete the action. But we see no evidence of this. But my job is not to assess the body language, but what he says. [The prosecutor Engh: - Do you have something to say about kroppsspåkret through all these hours?] I have not thought about it before I get questions about it. So that means that it is very unusual. He seems calm. [Right Psychiatrist Huseby: - The word pragmatic, there is a description you are in for, or think you may have a different background?] That I may have picked it up from the interrogations? I will not rule. [Right Psychiatrist Huseby: - Would you use another word, if you'd like to?] I understand that word to describe things that are made in an efficient and tactically. It's right on Utøya. It is possible a philologist would debate with me about it. If the word was naturally in my vocabulary until I started talking about this, it is hard to say.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
When Breivik is allowed to make any comments on Løken diploma, he sits at ease in his chair and smiles broadly to onion before he begins. - There are only a few minor comments, he says first.
11:51: Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: You said bomb the group was impressed. Can you elaborate on that?] Impressed, well, yes .. The purpose was to reveal whether he had done this alone, or if there was more. He gave evidence of how things were made, where the boiling point of the thing was, and the program how much he had the use of a thing. [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: But it was not that the bomb was so complex?] What was complicated was the trigger. It was a challenging piece of work, apparently. [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: An earlier witness said that the bomb was not complex, namely.] This is not my field of competence, so I do not think that I should say much more about. [Defense Geir Lippestad: So, Breivik few comments.] [Judge Wenche Arntzen Elisabeth: Yes, some pretty quick, then.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik comments above about the onion Hadeland killings, and would like to emphasize that he believed drapsmenne militant nationalists. He speaks with a lower and milder voice than when he commented Morland testimony earlier today. Breivik also points out that the onion was right is in Breivik comment that used the word "expropriate" error. - It is wrong, the right word is the requisition. I make mistakes too, and I'm not afraid to admit it, he said. It's lunch time at 12:35. It's a tight schedule today, and Arntzen maintains that the court must be raised no later than 16:30. After lunch the three expert witnesses to talk about right-wing ideology, and all the witnesses sent by VGTV.
Anders Breivik Behring:
- You mentioned "Laser Man", as I have said is that there is an assumption that he is a militant nationalist based on information available, and not an assertion. In the case, ie, the statement that there should be 15,000 militant nationalists in Norway, I specified that it is 15,000 which is likely to be militant nationalists. But I have not said that people are ready with weapons. It is also true figure for the European 300,000. There are also individuals who are inclined to be militant extremists. The uniform of course I thought at first was totally unimportant in the grand sammehengen, but still important. - And rightly so specific, I do mistakes like everyone else, and that word, the use of "expropriation", it's wrong then. So I make the mistake and I, like everyone else. And I'm not afraid to admit it. [No more questions. Onions are done. Judge Arntzen prepare for the lunch break, and states that the court today has an absolute deadline at 16:30. She says that if the defendant has further comments on the upcoming witnesses, they shall be collected at the end of the day.] [Judge Arntzen: - When the court takes a break to five over half of one. It is a three quarter hour lunch break, it would hold.]
11:58: VG:
- The court pauses until 12:35.
12:47: Holocaust Center Historian: Terje Emberland:
12:40: Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
The actors and the audience is on its way into the hall 250 The experts are always early, and prosecutors are also in place. There are many photographers in the audience, and several TV stations are still live. court is still not set, the judges are outside the hall. Breivik are not led into the hall yet, and the judges will not consider until all is in place.
12:42: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:
- As negotiations continue. And we have now arrived at a privately hired expert witness. [Witness's name is Terje Emberland and he sits ed]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
The first witness after the break is in place in the witness box. This is a senior researcher at the Holocaust Center, Terje Emberland, which is among the prosecution witnesses on the recommendation of the coordinating aid lawyers. You can follow his explanation for VGTV. Emberland says that after 22 July was uncertainty about what kind of ideology Breivik stood for, but said after he heard Breivik's explanation and read the compendium, he concludes that Breivik's ideology is fascist.
12:47: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- [prosecutor Holden: - Emberland I want you to tell us about your professional background and your current position] I am a senior scientist at the Holocaust Center. I have written numerous books and professional articles. [Emberland list what these are and also talks about the commitment he has had in the past and now in addition to his job] I have also commented on right-wing ideology in relation to terrorist attacks and Breivik compendium of press, Norwegian and international. I also got early access to the rettspyskiatriske evaluations and have commented on it too. [The prosecutor Holden: - Does that mean that you have read the compendium of Breivik?] I have read carefully the ideological aspects of Breivik's compendium.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Senior researcher perceives ideology of Breivik as an ideological hybrid, where he has cut and pasted a lot together, in that he draws elements from many different directions. - It is not uncommon among today's fascists. Many of them are often not as concerned with political theory, but pour rvoldsbruk and powerful symbols. Often they will have trouble explaining what they stand for, says Emberland.
12:49: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [prosecutor Holden: - I wish that you first tell us how you look at Breivik's ideology.] I thought at first only to discuss how to place this world picture as it appears in the compendium and the court, and then look at the historical parallels to his basic thinking, and view the policies that have caused. Things that at first glance may seem very bizarre and deviant has Examples are given that have historical precedent. After 22 July was much uncertainty how the characterization of Breivik's ideology. Was he antijihadistisk, an extreme Christian or a militant conservative nationalist? And after hearing particularly Breivik's testimony in court and his world view in a concentrated form, I think things are clearer. I think it can be characterized as fascist. He believes that Europe is managed systematically and secretly by a conspiracy of kulturmarxister and Muslims. We are in a apokalyptisik time. - This he thinks will lead to a national awakening, led by an elite of "perfect knight" as he describes. This maturity and conspiracy idea and the dream of a cleansing war and new world order, is what most scientists now agree that is fascist. But then there are elements of Nordic research raged, kontrajihadisme and American ultra-conservatism. Much of the network and sometimes questionable sources. It's a mutation. He retrieves items from a variety of places and have selectively chosen sources. It is not uncommon among today's fascists. They are more concerned with strong symbols and violence, than by ideology and thinking itself.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
There has been a significantly lighter atmosphere in the room 250 in the day and the last few days, now that the heavy weeks of testimony from Utøya is over. It is often short laughter in the audience, and people seem calmer and more relaxed. It is probably that there is now a large majority of journalists among us in the room, which also is under half full.
12:53: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- If they are confronted with to explain what they stand for, they will have great difficulty to explain this world view. These symbols such as these today surrounds himself with the fascists, Breivik has collected from various sources also conflicting national romantic ideas. It may be "skinheads" and the American national romantic thinking. So the articulate level, it is difficult to determine if they have a coherent ideology. They form together a "pool" of shared components that are fascist. Some commentators have written in this case that it comes with Breivik has no reflecting ideology. In my study of SS ideology and strongly differing worldview of religious movements, it is too narrow a view of the reality of an ideology.
12:55: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- If you use the what you call an aristocratic definition of such a reality is to be understood as a logical coherent and thorough view on life. Few of us have anything like that. A world view is more a relationship of symbols, myths, etc. that we use to give life meaning. In that sense, all this reality. So no matter how bizarre his true picture may be, he has expressed a reasonably coherent worldview. It can be placed at a fascist tradition. [The prosecutor Holden: - Can you repeat some of these individual elements?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Emberland explains that in the research agree that the two elements essentially constitute a fascist ideology: one is a show about a conspiracy, that we are facing the cliff and that this is a deliberate action among the who has power. Breivik Arbeiderpatriet believes has betrayed Norway and signed a pact to let the Muslims take over the country and Europe. The second notion is the idea of an apocalyptic civil war that will open the way for a new social order of national rebirth. Breivik believe this will happen in 2083, and the Knights Templar to assume leadership positions in a totalitarian society where citizens are sorted and the Norwegian Indigenous grows up. Breivik take notes while Emberland explanatory. He has a serious facial expression, and showed no obvious reaction to Emberland explanation that in many ways strips Breivik's ideological conviction that a conglomeration of other ideologies, without any independent value.
13:00: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- I am sure others will emphasize this in court. It is with belief in the conspiracy. A secret, systematically driven conspiracy to destroy the entire culture, and that we stand on the edge of the cliff now. The second is this apocalyptic civil war will result, which should pave the way for a new social order. Then there are elements that appear to be more bizarre. In court, he has motivated his terror attacks with the desire to rescue the Norwegian indigenous peoples from extinction. In the compendium, this is elaborated in several places where he speaks of a "catastrophic bastardiseringsprosess." There are elements of pure bred king, of an indigenous people with 12.0000 years of unbroken succession. He says that within three to four generations, the pure breed in most countries in Europe will be destroyed. This notion takes him from the net, but also from breed books. Where it is claimed that racial mixture is ødelggende, and that the Nordic race is superior in every way. This ends Breivik to, but he believed instead to emphasize the benefits you have to talk about the claim and the rights urb
Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- As Breivik discuss possible ways to achieve this, that the rescue operation for the Nordic race. He proposed a pan-Nordic motion and it was actually started by a German man who wanted it. And this movement's main points was the belief in a pure Nordic urrase. It included the belief that cultural creative power was threatened with extinction and destruction of civilization. This movement gained by Gunther and Hitler's former agriculture minister and formed the basic outline of the SS 'ideology. The Nordic race thinking was the foundation of the SS racial ideology. So Breivik discuss whether race should have reserves and there is not a unique show. This movement of race romantic character we then discussed the possibility to save this breed. Himmler himself belonged to such a motion.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Emberland has previously expressed criticism of the first expert rap roots because he believes Synne Sørheim and Torgeir Husby should have taken an ideological framework in mind when they considered him. - These are far more normal in that context, and not necessarily a sign of clinical or psychological deviations, saying to him. Sørheim and Husby argues in his declaration that political ideology is outside their mandate.
13:04: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- Breivik also think you have to try to ensure the Nordic race genetic material through controlled measures, such as the use of surrugatmødre. Also for the SS received the Nordic racial ideology that it had endangered the consequence that they developed a Institution whose purpose was to ensure a child's wealth of Nordic blood. Mon the foundation of the Nordic kivinner (...). Mon secured the offspring of SS members of these women. In Norway, a purely SS project more precisely Institution of racial reasons, because they believed that Norway and Sweden were the purest populations of pure Scandinavian race. In summary. Some of the things that stands out in Breivik's thinking is in many ways which we recognize from history, and there are consequences of the basic elements of his tenkining. [The prosecutor Holden: - Is that mean that you think the declaration to Huseby and Sørheim lacked ideological perspectives.] It appeared extremely strange if you know the world picture as it fascisistiske has represented throughout history, it appeared much more normal in the context and not necessarily as a result of clinical error. I miss the possibility that these have been interpreted and put into a larger assessment. Among other things, this messianic interpretation of a knight's ideal, one that will save Europe OCV. - [prosecutor Svein Holden: Oddly enough grip you now hold in my last two questions. That the messianic vocation and knighted. Yes, well ... The expectation that you have a mission destined to save the world related to conspiracy thinking. When Breivik and his like-minded users think they have truth on their side and they do not win your way with this view, they must find an explanation - which then is that there are evil forces opposing. It gives a sense of being called and chosen. One has seen the great truth, and must fight against the evil forces. It includes the government, the cultural elite and the press. In neo-Nazism they think that all this in secret is controlled by Jews.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Emberland addresses many of the performances in Breivik's manifesto and explanations of Sørheim and Husby is seen as grandiose delusions. He believes that both thoughts avlsfarmer for a separate indigenous people, the idea that one is chosen to save Europe and the idea that one is part of a mostandskamp stretching back to the war is not specific to Breivik, on the contrary. - There are many who believe this, and it will be difficult to do all morbid, says Emberland.
13:07: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- And Breivik's fantasies of Labor and kulturmarxisme, the community, according to him was occupied by an illegitimate regime which, together with the Muslims strive to deprive our society. In this warped perception of reality makes it easy for him to consider it legitimate to use terrorism as legitimate resistance. He and his fellow draws parallels with the resistance during the war. Otherwise, this is not to follow that one should save Europe anything special either. We know of several stories about the revival preachers who must save the world from doom. There are many who have such grandiose ideas about his own role, and it becomes difficult to make these morbidly. We have people with very specific ideas with us and we are more likely to accept this if they are religious and if they are political.
13:08: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [prosecutor Holden: - In continuation of this, I have a small question: You had mentioned that there are many who find themselves in a sort of call-related situation. What thoughts do you means Breivik adopt?] We have examples in the last ten years on cults who commit mass murder in God's command. When it comes Breivik mechanisms: one thing to argue that it is legitimate to engage in violent military resistance to this. But here we are the limits of what I, as historian of religion can comment on. It plays into the psychological elements. One thing is to share the perception, something else is going to act. [The prosecutor Holden: - Then we can move on to my final point, this with knighthood.] I have already pointed out similarities between the SS-thinking and Breivik's ideas as presented in the compendium and the right. - An example of this is that Breivik legitimize his imaginary Crusader-order with the same funds that Himmler and the SS did. Himmler used the Teutonic crusaders who fought against the tribes in the east, and they were highlighted as role models and heroes for all the pure SS-men. The war against what they believed was Jewish Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union was seen as a continuation of the Crusades. In the Civil War Breivik waiting and hoping the focus is directed against Islam, so he targets the Knights Templar who fought against the Muslims. He thinks they should take power in the West and impose a conservative cultural agenda. It is with both a mind to continue the Crusades, and be the backbone of Europe.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Holden asks Emberland if he can say anything about Breivik explanations and ideas about a knight order. According to the historian there are many features in common with Nazism, which also inspired by knightly orders. - Heavens inspired by the tautoniske Knights when he created the SS, he explains. There are also similarities between the ethos of the words - both to give his life for the cause, and put all their motivation and willingness to fight. Emberland believe the greatest similarity lies in the way the Nazis and Breivik is at war as an instrument, and the willingness to put aside all morality. Breivik himself has denied that he has any sympathy or agreement with Nazism.
13:13: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- There are several parallels to the epic that characterized the SS and Himmler's organization and Breivik think about the Knights Templar. They are totally dedicated to the case and they perceive themselves as crusaders. It's like the SS told members that they should our God believers. The most important and striking similarity is the attitude towards the war's character and role. It is courage and martyrdom. It's like SS and Himmler maintained. [The prosecutor Holden: - Now I'm a little unsure about Breivik even agree that the link to SS. Could there be other options?] My main point is the same as the SS with the Jews as Breivik with the Muslims. It has the same consequences and the same type of ideals set aside a page for every moral of this final battle. Himmler's moral is that you can kill civilians, it is reminiscent of Breivik's statement that it is about existence and non-existence and that the knight should sacrifice himself.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Holden points out that Breivik hardly agree with Emberland in the assessment of the inspiration of Nazism, as Breivik even claim that he is opposed to Nazism. - It's really irrelevant to the case what Breivik believes and where he has drawn inspiration from, says the historian. For him, the point is that Breivik and Nazism actually share ideas, not what Breivik think.
13:16: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- It is the same type of structure and thinking that the SS had. [The prosecutor Holden: - Now, I shot as usual into a few more questions than I notified, but thanks. Colleague Engh has a question.] [The prosecutor Engh: - parallel to the SS, if we compare with the sects who commit mass murder. It is assumed by Breivik alone. How does this relate to the situation of Breivik. Group dynamics.] SS 'atrocities and mass murder was the result of the order of identity and peer pressure. Breivik had a sense of belonging to a group through the Internet. It is more important to gain by cutting from other types of objections. The question of lederløs resistance, which is the strategy that was developed by Nazi groups from the 80's by, was a strategy change, a move away from hierarchical organized groups to avoid being traced.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh takes up the question of sanity. Emberland say it is difficult to answer, but points out that the thousands of soldiers who killed for Hitler probably was clinically ill. - But if it is so difficult to consider this, who should seek advice from? Ask Engh. - Certainly not a historian, answers Emberland, to laughter from the audience.
13:18: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: But do you think one-man cells that grow out of itself, or that it agreed?] No, they often have the same strategy and goals - but working independently of each other . [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Do you think groups that plan it that way, or pure individuals? As far as I know this is people who have already ideology. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: we would find out about Breivik has real flaws to a degree where he is irresponsible. It must be considered from people who feel the same. Is there anything from the story that shows how the limit for when those who think this is wrong within the group? It is a terribly complex question. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Yes, that's what we're working with ... It was studied a police division of the SS that made mass murder on the Eastern Front. All were normal men without major deviations. I find it hard to believe that an organization that counts millions and go out and compete to rise through the ranks of the SS ... That these would all be mentally ill in the clinical sense, I think that's hard to believe. But it is clear that there are overlapping. Breivik has a larger agenda than what I perceive as delusions.
Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- [prosecutor Bejer Engh: - But in such a difficult assessment that we should do now, who should then seek advice from to find out if he is real questionable in this group again?] It is not a historian. We know the ideas from before and they have the same consequences and have other relationships whether it be religious or political. It is intercepts and the outer limits of my competence. It is clear that I said that to live in this universe and feel entitled to extreme violence are the factors from this point and realize that. Although the tools are familiar.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lippestad says Breivik would like to comment Emberland explanation Emberland while still in the witness box. Lawyer Frode Elgesem To learn more about the notion of chivalry and how it was perceived among the Nazis. Emberland explains that it is a sacrifice in the perception not only of themselves for the cause, but also a sacrifice of all morality in favor of the story. This is consistent with Breivik's description of himself as a knight in the manifest.
13:23: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [Bistandsadvokar Elgesem: - I will go back to your definition of fascism, the last link I perceived that the apocalyptic war will lead to an awakening and a new social elite led by Breivik universe or a perfect SS-man. On bakgurnn of your research, can you tell us more about the requirements of SS-man, can you tell us about his responsibilities and role in the Hitler project?] Willingness to do barbaric, but necessary actions, such Breivik also calls it, is a example of what constitutes an SS man. Breivik he says is based on love for the Norwegian people. There is a parallel that acts on behalf of the breed and the future and history. An SS man to be a perfect and selvoppoffrende knight. A realization of the vision that the SS were set to achieve. Thus he is relieved of responsibility as individuals. This ensures SS 'emergency action, even when the actions normally would have gone against the individual's morality. Mass killing of Jews was necessary to realize the national socialist utopia. Sacrifice of self and morality, as a small cog in a large system.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Emberland request to comment on the term "kulturmarxisme" as well use Breivik rooms Labor and AUF. He points out that the term "kulturbolsjevik" was a common abuse of the Nazis to denigrate the left side. The word comes from Bolshevik Russia and means majority. It was used on the majority of Lenin's Communist Party, which was a separate area within communism.
13:26: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- So this is the martyr idea central to National Socialist ideology. It has blood tab and the cult of those who sacrifice themselves. [Coordinating counsel Frode Elgsem: Who gives SS mannnen the role?] He defends race against alien races and maturity. [Coordinating counsel Frode Elgsem: We are now talking far into the SS story. Thinking about this idea as being unique for Breivik in recent history?] When it comes to today's fascists, so other people can give a better introduction. But SS is inspiring for those, even today. I have a comment about kulturmarxisme, too. Kulurbolsjevisme was used by the Nazis about everything they said broke into the culture. Quisling was extremely conspiratorial about the Labour Party, for example. [Coordinating counsel Frode Elgsem: Breivik think of an outer and inner enemy. A war on two fronts. Can you utdtype historically?] It is central to the SS his thoughts on the state protection. Waffen SS were fighting at the front and the outer enemy, and Jews were also external enemy there. But then there were traitors, Jews and Freemasons as the inner enemy. Conspiracy is central.
13:30: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- [Lawyer Elgesem: - You talked a bit about common men's ability to do acts for political purposes, can you elaborate on the details surrounding your research on the SS-man's task and mission, that you are exempt responsibility] ideology Promotes this, that one can henskrive its responsibility to the story that makes sense to set aside moral considerations. Then there is a indoktrineringsprosess, peer pressure and propaganda. It Promotes required to participate. It is a complex relationship between ideological motivation and massacres when it comes to Norwegian cohorts. It's about the personality characteristics, propaganda and peer pressure. [Lawyer Elgesem: - Propaganda as you mentioned earlier and that the ideology should consist of myths and symbols. Forging History, it will be unique?] No, of course not. Nazi propaganda is full of distortions of history. Among other things, forgeries to document Jewish verdenssammensvergelse.
Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [Elgesem: - As regards the latter issue. We were in that Breiviik operated on their own, as a one-man terrorist cell. Are there historical parallels to the kind of thinking?] Not in the near past. It has developments as "leaderless resistance" as it is given an expression of the book "The Hunter". He had written another book that was a recipe for bombers, including in Oklahoma. "The Hunter" goes on to a lone wolf strategy. This is a strategy we know from the neo-Nazi terror as I'm sure Tore Bjørgo and others can say more about. [Elgesem: - Thank you. Do you have any more to add?] No.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Psychiatrist Torgeir Husby ask Emberland know some historical analogies to the breivik have done, where an individual has followed an ideological conviction outside a larger context, without a sense of belonging. - The only thing I'm getting at is Timothy McVeigh, said Emberland. McVeigh, or the Oklahoma bomber, was sentenced to death for blowing up a federal office building in Oklahoma in the U.S. in 1995. 168 people were killed. McVeigh was executed in 2001.
13:33: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [Cute lawsuit Torgeir Husby: I have two questions. Is there some historical analogies to our situation, where individuals without affiliation to a group commit such acts? Mass murder out of context, that is.] The closest I come is Timothy McVeigh (who was behind the bombing in Oklahoma forecast in the USA). He is an example of this. Also, we have also, for example Laser Man. [Cute lawsuit Torgeir Husby: Have you any knowledge of the factors that bring people to think and mean to do such things? War's such a factor, but is something more in our context?] The most immediate is the result of all possible communities that suddenly explodes and, for example, massacring Jews. Where conspiracy theories are spreading a deadly way, even if communities are stable before that.
13:38: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- [Aspaas: - You have proven historical parallels to Breivik's thinking. If you find something that does not have parallels that are unique?] No, I would rather say it like that, excuse the expression, a process of cut and paste method creates a new fusion and it is clear that his Templar-mythology is in many ways which he has developed a large extent. It's a way to legitimize bringing together Christian and national conservative. There is an element of innovation in it, even if it is fused process of many elements. [Aspaas: - This uniforms and theatrical about it?] There is no known from the extreme right and fascist movements. There are symbols, parades, uniforms and rank schemes. SS was full of this. There were awards and how to work up the structures. There were strict hierarchical and pompous forms. Studdert were many things that helped to create a stylish setting for the order of the identity.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen Emberland ask about his definsjon of fascism and whether he expects Breivik's ideology as part of the Italian fascism. Emberland answered that he uses the concept of generic fascism and that he refers to both the Italian and other forms of fascism. Eielsen is even a political scientist, and the two go into a rather academic discussion.
13:40: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [Straight Sørheim Psychiatrist: It was in the wake of my colleague's question, do you know what has brought some ...? I do not know it. Then we are on the borderline of what I as an historian can say. But the psychological limit of a single individual, then we are into a different field. [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: - Fascism know you often from Italy in the interwar period. Is there the political landscape to place Breivik's ideology?] No, I use the term as a generic term. There is no doubt that Breivik's ideology can not be fit into neither Mussolini fascism in the 1920s, or Hitler's Nazi government. I use the term as a generic term. [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: - Breivik has even categorized as a "militant nationalist." Do you see any connection there?] It does not. But he wants to call himself that, is something he does to distance themselves from Nazism. The fact that National Socialism is not a term you can use today, is a pragmatic reasons, not ideological. He will be collecting nationalists. National Socialists are discredited by Hitler's Nazi politics. - [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: So it's a sort of upgraded version, this?] Yes, and a new version too. [Judge Arne Lyng, I have a couple questions. This with the SS, uniforms and so on. Can you say something about the degree system in which] they had their own system. It corresponded in part to the system in the army, but with different names. So they also had a separate branch of the order with its own degrees and uniforms. [Heather: Did they do it from another organization?] It was widely from norse ideology and racist movements. They picked this symbolism and had his very own rank-order. [Heather: Also, we have seen here a special greeting from Breivik here in the audience (the fist). Reminds you of someone else?] It reminds very much of fascist greetings. It also provides a sense of Roman greetings. These are consistently among the fascists, but Breivik's greeting is no blueprint of something I've seen before.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik will comment Emberland diplomas, and Judge Wenche Arntzen points out that the two are not allowed to start a debate. Breivik argues against the history of the researcher's definition of fascism and still refuse to be part of this direction. Breivik seems irritated, and no longer the friendly voice he had when he commented interrogate Løken's testimony before the break. It is now time to break 14.05. After the break to Professor Tore Bjørgo and journalist Øyvind current witness.
13:44: Behring Anders Breivik:
- Well first of all, when it comes to fascism, there is a broad term, and as I described it, there is support for the one-party system and therefore there is left - and right fascists. I do not support one-party system, but need a transitional period of twenty years to introduce the concept of democracy. When it comes to what you mentioned that I had said the Nordic race, I have not used the word race, nor in the compendium. And I have also booked me on the use of the word, I have used the ethnic group and not the word race. I have not used the word Germanic - I've used the word Nordic. I also have reservations about using the word Germanic because it has relevance to another ideology that I do not support. I have not argued for Norwegian superiority, but survival will be the consequence. - For if nothing is done, the Norwegian ethnic group will be deconstructed within 150 years. And after 200 years there will be individuals with blue eyes. When we talk about survival and supremacy. So konspriasjonsteorier: The so-called Arabian theory is a theory, for it has been documented, including in my compendium. As far as I know, has not Emberland managed to refute the documentary evidence. - And, well ... The essence is that the Norwegian people have never been asked if they allow the country transformed into a multikutlturelt society. The nationalists have been under pressure after the Second World War is not something I claim, it is a fact I have absolutely no national socialist. I support Israel's struggle against jihadism. I think everyone, regardless of ethnic background, are brothers, so long as they assimilierer, and as long as they fight the same. The very contrary to what was said then. Thank you. [Judge Wenche Arntzen: Want to say something, Emberland] [Historian Terje Emberland: Is it necessary that I say something?] [Arntzen: Yes.]
13:45: VG:
- The Court has taken a break at 14:05.
The actors and the audience is on its way into the hall 250 The experts are always early, and prosecutors are also in place. There are many photographers in the audience, and several TV stations are still live. court is still not set, the judges are outside the hall. Breivik are not led into the hall yet, and the judges will not consider until all is in place.
12:42: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:
- As negotiations continue. And we have now arrived at a privately hired expert witness. [Witness's name is Terje Emberland and he sits ed]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
The first witness after the break is in place in the witness box. This is a senior researcher at the Holocaust Center, Terje Emberland, which is among the prosecution witnesses on the recommendation of the coordinating aid lawyers. You can follow his explanation for VGTV. Emberland says that after 22 July was uncertainty about what kind of ideology Breivik stood for, but said after he heard Breivik's explanation and read the compendium, he concludes that Breivik's ideology is fascist.
12:47: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- [prosecutor Holden: - Emberland I want you to tell us about your professional background and your current position] I am a senior scientist at the Holocaust Center. I have written numerous books and professional articles. [Emberland list what these are and also talks about the commitment he has had in the past and now in addition to his job] I have also commented on right-wing ideology in relation to terrorist attacks and Breivik compendium of press, Norwegian and international. I also got early access to the rettspyskiatriske evaluations and have commented on it too. [The prosecutor Holden: - Does that mean that you have read the compendium of Breivik?] I have read carefully the ideological aspects of Breivik's compendium.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Senior researcher perceives ideology of Breivik as an ideological hybrid, where he has cut and pasted a lot together, in that he draws elements from many different directions. - It is not uncommon among today's fascists. Many of them are often not as concerned with political theory, but pour rvoldsbruk and powerful symbols. Often they will have trouble explaining what they stand for, says Emberland.
12:49: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [prosecutor Holden: - I wish that you first tell us how you look at Breivik's ideology.] I thought at first only to discuss how to place this world picture as it appears in the compendium and the court, and then look at the historical parallels to his basic thinking, and view the policies that have caused. Things that at first glance may seem very bizarre and deviant has Examples are given that have historical precedent. After 22 July was much uncertainty how the characterization of Breivik's ideology. Was he antijihadistisk, an extreme Christian or a militant conservative nationalist? And after hearing particularly Breivik's testimony in court and his world view in a concentrated form, I think things are clearer. I think it can be characterized as fascist. He believes that Europe is managed systematically and secretly by a conspiracy of kulturmarxister and Muslims. We are in a apokalyptisik time. - This he thinks will lead to a national awakening, led by an elite of "perfect knight" as he describes. This maturity and conspiracy idea and the dream of a cleansing war and new world order, is what most scientists now agree that is fascist. But then there are elements of Nordic research raged, kontrajihadisme and American ultra-conservatism. Much of the network and sometimes questionable sources. It's a mutation. He retrieves items from a variety of places and have selectively chosen sources. It is not uncommon among today's fascists. They are more concerned with strong symbols and violence, than by ideology and thinking itself.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
There has been a significantly lighter atmosphere in the room 250 in the day and the last few days, now that the heavy weeks of testimony from Utøya is over. It is often short laughter in the audience, and people seem calmer and more relaxed. It is probably that there is now a large majority of journalists among us in the room, which also is under half full.
12:53: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- If they are confronted with to explain what they stand for, they will have great difficulty to explain this world view. These symbols such as these today surrounds himself with the fascists, Breivik has collected from various sources also conflicting national romantic ideas. It may be "skinheads" and the American national romantic thinking. So the articulate level, it is difficult to determine if they have a coherent ideology. They form together a "pool" of shared components that are fascist. Some commentators have written in this case that it comes with Breivik has no reflecting ideology. In my study of SS ideology and strongly differing worldview of religious movements, it is too narrow a view of the reality of an ideology.
12:55: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- If you use the what you call an aristocratic definition of such a reality is to be understood as a logical coherent and thorough view on life. Few of us have anything like that. A world view is more a relationship of symbols, myths, etc. that we use to give life meaning. In that sense, all this reality. So no matter how bizarre his true picture may be, he has expressed a reasonably coherent worldview. It can be placed at a fascist tradition. [The prosecutor Holden: - Can you repeat some of these individual elements?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Emberland explains that in the research agree that the two elements essentially constitute a fascist ideology: one is a show about a conspiracy, that we are facing the cliff and that this is a deliberate action among the who has power. Breivik Arbeiderpatriet believes has betrayed Norway and signed a pact to let the Muslims take over the country and Europe. The second notion is the idea of an apocalyptic civil war that will open the way for a new social order of national rebirth. Breivik believe this will happen in 2083, and the Knights Templar to assume leadership positions in a totalitarian society where citizens are sorted and the Norwegian Indigenous grows up. Breivik take notes while Emberland explanatory. He has a serious facial expression, and showed no obvious reaction to Emberland explanation that in many ways strips Breivik's ideological conviction that a conglomeration of other ideologies, without any independent value.
13:00: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- I am sure others will emphasize this in court. It is with belief in the conspiracy. A secret, systematically driven conspiracy to destroy the entire culture, and that we stand on the edge of the cliff now. The second is this apocalyptic civil war will result, which should pave the way for a new social order. Then there are elements that appear to be more bizarre. In court, he has motivated his terror attacks with the desire to rescue the Norwegian indigenous peoples from extinction. In the compendium, this is elaborated in several places where he speaks of a "catastrophic bastardiseringsprosess." There are elements of pure bred king, of an indigenous people with 12.0000 years of unbroken succession. He says that within three to four generations, the pure breed in most countries in Europe will be destroyed. This notion takes him from the net, but also from breed books. Where it is claimed that racial mixture is ødelggende, and that the Nordic race is superior in every way. This ends Breivik to, but he believed instead to emphasize the benefits you have to talk about the claim and the rights urb
Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- As Breivik discuss possible ways to achieve this, that the rescue operation for the Nordic race. He proposed a pan-Nordic motion and it was actually started by a German man who wanted it. And this movement's main points was the belief in a pure Nordic urrase. It included the belief that cultural creative power was threatened with extinction and destruction of civilization. This movement gained by Gunther and Hitler's former agriculture minister and formed the basic outline of the SS 'ideology. The Nordic race thinking was the foundation of the SS racial ideology. So Breivik discuss whether race should have reserves and there is not a unique show. This movement of race romantic character we then discussed the possibility to save this breed. Himmler himself belonged to such a motion.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Emberland has previously expressed criticism of the first expert rap roots because he believes Synne Sørheim and Torgeir Husby should have taken an ideological framework in mind when they considered him. - These are far more normal in that context, and not necessarily a sign of clinical or psychological deviations, saying to him. Sørheim and Husby argues in his declaration that political ideology is outside their mandate.
13:04: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- Breivik also think you have to try to ensure the Nordic race genetic material through controlled measures, such as the use of surrugatmødre. Also for the SS received the Nordic racial ideology that it had endangered the consequence that they developed a Institution whose purpose was to ensure a child's wealth of Nordic blood. Mon the foundation of the Nordic kivinner (...). Mon secured the offspring of SS members of these women. In Norway, a purely SS project more precisely Institution of racial reasons, because they believed that Norway and Sweden were the purest populations of pure Scandinavian race. In summary. Some of the things that stands out in Breivik's thinking is in many ways which we recognize from history, and there are consequences of the basic elements of his tenkining. [The prosecutor Holden: - Is that mean that you think the declaration to Huseby and Sørheim lacked ideological perspectives.] It appeared extremely strange if you know the world picture as it fascisistiske has represented throughout history, it appeared much more normal in the context and not necessarily as a result of clinical error. I miss the possibility that these have been interpreted and put into a larger assessment. Among other things, this messianic interpretation of a knight's ideal, one that will save Europe OCV. - [prosecutor Svein Holden: Oddly enough grip you now hold in my last two questions. That the messianic vocation and knighted. Yes, well ... The expectation that you have a mission destined to save the world related to conspiracy thinking. When Breivik and his like-minded users think they have truth on their side and they do not win your way with this view, they must find an explanation - which then is that there are evil forces opposing. It gives a sense of being called and chosen. One has seen the great truth, and must fight against the evil forces. It includes the government, the cultural elite and the press. In neo-Nazism they think that all this in secret is controlled by Jews.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Emberland addresses many of the performances in Breivik's manifesto and explanations of Sørheim and Husby is seen as grandiose delusions. He believes that both thoughts avlsfarmer for a separate indigenous people, the idea that one is chosen to save Europe and the idea that one is part of a mostandskamp stretching back to the war is not specific to Breivik, on the contrary. - There are many who believe this, and it will be difficult to do all morbid, says Emberland.
13:07: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- And Breivik's fantasies of Labor and kulturmarxisme, the community, according to him was occupied by an illegitimate regime which, together with the Muslims strive to deprive our society. In this warped perception of reality makes it easy for him to consider it legitimate to use terrorism as legitimate resistance. He and his fellow draws parallels with the resistance during the war. Otherwise, this is not to follow that one should save Europe anything special either. We know of several stories about the revival preachers who must save the world from doom. There are many who have such grandiose ideas about his own role, and it becomes difficult to make these morbidly. We have people with very specific ideas with us and we are more likely to accept this if they are religious and if they are political.
13:08: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [prosecutor Holden: - In continuation of this, I have a small question: You had mentioned that there are many who find themselves in a sort of call-related situation. What thoughts do you means Breivik adopt?] We have examples in the last ten years on cults who commit mass murder in God's command. When it comes Breivik mechanisms: one thing to argue that it is legitimate to engage in violent military resistance to this. But here we are the limits of what I, as historian of religion can comment on. It plays into the psychological elements. One thing is to share the perception, something else is going to act. [The prosecutor Holden: - Then we can move on to my final point, this with knighthood.] I have already pointed out similarities between the SS-thinking and Breivik's ideas as presented in the compendium and the right. - An example of this is that Breivik legitimize his imaginary Crusader-order with the same funds that Himmler and the SS did. Himmler used the Teutonic crusaders who fought against the tribes in the east, and they were highlighted as role models and heroes for all the pure SS-men. The war against what they believed was Jewish Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union was seen as a continuation of the Crusades. In the Civil War Breivik waiting and hoping the focus is directed against Islam, so he targets the Knights Templar who fought against the Muslims. He thinks they should take power in the West and impose a conservative cultural agenda. It is with both a mind to continue the Crusades, and be the backbone of Europe.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Holden asks Emberland if he can say anything about Breivik explanations and ideas about a knight order. According to the historian there are many features in common with Nazism, which also inspired by knightly orders. - Heavens inspired by the tautoniske Knights when he created the SS, he explains. There are also similarities between the ethos of the words - both to give his life for the cause, and put all their motivation and willingness to fight. Emberland believe the greatest similarity lies in the way the Nazis and Breivik is at war as an instrument, and the willingness to put aside all morality. Breivik himself has denied that he has any sympathy or agreement with Nazism.
13:13: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- There are several parallels to the epic that characterized the SS and Himmler's organization and Breivik think about the Knights Templar. They are totally dedicated to the case and they perceive themselves as crusaders. It's like the SS told members that they should our God believers. The most important and striking similarity is the attitude towards the war's character and role. It is courage and martyrdom. It's like SS and Himmler maintained. [The prosecutor Holden: - Now I'm a little unsure about Breivik even agree that the link to SS. Could there be other options?] My main point is the same as the SS with the Jews as Breivik with the Muslims. It has the same consequences and the same type of ideals set aside a page for every moral of this final battle. Himmler's moral is that you can kill civilians, it is reminiscent of Breivik's statement that it is about existence and non-existence and that the knight should sacrifice himself.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Holden points out that Breivik hardly agree with Emberland in the assessment of the inspiration of Nazism, as Breivik even claim that he is opposed to Nazism. - It's really irrelevant to the case what Breivik believes and where he has drawn inspiration from, says the historian. For him, the point is that Breivik and Nazism actually share ideas, not what Breivik think.
13:16: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- It is the same type of structure and thinking that the SS had. [The prosecutor Holden: - Now, I shot as usual into a few more questions than I notified, but thanks. Colleague Engh has a question.] [The prosecutor Engh: - parallel to the SS, if we compare with the sects who commit mass murder. It is assumed by Breivik alone. How does this relate to the situation of Breivik. Group dynamics.] SS 'atrocities and mass murder was the result of the order of identity and peer pressure. Breivik had a sense of belonging to a group through the Internet. It is more important to gain by cutting from other types of objections. The question of lederløs resistance, which is the strategy that was developed by Nazi groups from the 80's by, was a strategy change, a move away from hierarchical organized groups to avoid being traced.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh takes up the question of sanity. Emberland say it is difficult to answer, but points out that the thousands of soldiers who killed for Hitler probably was clinically ill. - But if it is so difficult to consider this, who should seek advice from? Ask Engh. - Certainly not a historian, answers Emberland, to laughter from the audience.
13:18: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: But do you think one-man cells that grow out of itself, or that it agreed?] No, they often have the same strategy and goals - but working independently of each other . [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Do you think groups that plan it that way, or pure individuals? As far as I know this is people who have already ideology. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: we would find out about Breivik has real flaws to a degree where he is irresponsible. It must be considered from people who feel the same. Is there anything from the story that shows how the limit for when those who think this is wrong within the group? It is a terribly complex question. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Yes, that's what we're working with ... It was studied a police division of the SS that made mass murder on the Eastern Front. All were normal men without major deviations. I find it hard to believe that an organization that counts millions and go out and compete to rise through the ranks of the SS ... That these would all be mentally ill in the clinical sense, I think that's hard to believe. But it is clear that there are overlapping. Breivik has a larger agenda than what I perceive as delusions.
Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- [prosecutor Bejer Engh: - But in such a difficult assessment that we should do now, who should then seek advice from to find out if he is real questionable in this group again?] It is not a historian. We know the ideas from before and they have the same consequences and have other relationships whether it be religious or political. It is intercepts and the outer limits of my competence. It is clear that I said that to live in this universe and feel entitled to extreme violence are the factors from this point and realize that. Although the tools are familiar.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lippestad says Breivik would like to comment Emberland explanation Emberland while still in the witness box. Lawyer Frode Elgesem To learn more about the notion of chivalry and how it was perceived among the Nazis. Emberland explains that it is a sacrifice in the perception not only of themselves for the cause, but also a sacrifice of all morality in favor of the story. This is consistent with Breivik's description of himself as a knight in the manifest.
13:23: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [Bistandsadvokar Elgesem: - I will go back to your definition of fascism, the last link I perceived that the apocalyptic war will lead to an awakening and a new social elite led by Breivik universe or a perfect SS-man. On bakgurnn of your research, can you tell us more about the requirements of SS-man, can you tell us about his responsibilities and role in the Hitler project?] Willingness to do barbaric, but necessary actions, such Breivik also calls it, is a example of what constitutes an SS man. Breivik he says is based on love for the Norwegian people. There is a parallel that acts on behalf of the breed and the future and history. An SS man to be a perfect and selvoppoffrende knight. A realization of the vision that the SS were set to achieve. Thus he is relieved of responsibility as individuals. This ensures SS 'emergency action, even when the actions normally would have gone against the individual's morality. Mass killing of Jews was necessary to realize the national socialist utopia. Sacrifice of self and morality, as a small cog in a large system.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Emberland request to comment on the term "kulturmarxisme" as well use Breivik rooms Labor and AUF. He points out that the term "kulturbolsjevik" was a common abuse of the Nazis to denigrate the left side. The word comes from Bolshevik Russia and means majority. It was used on the majority of Lenin's Communist Party, which was a separate area within communism.
13:26: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- So this is the martyr idea central to National Socialist ideology. It has blood tab and the cult of those who sacrifice themselves. [Coordinating counsel Frode Elgsem: Who gives SS mannnen the role?] He defends race against alien races and maturity. [Coordinating counsel Frode Elgsem: We are now talking far into the SS story. Thinking about this idea as being unique for Breivik in recent history?] When it comes to today's fascists, so other people can give a better introduction. But SS is inspiring for those, even today. I have a comment about kulturmarxisme, too. Kulurbolsjevisme was used by the Nazis about everything they said broke into the culture. Quisling was extremely conspiratorial about the Labour Party, for example. [Coordinating counsel Frode Elgsem: Breivik think of an outer and inner enemy. A war on two fronts. Can you utdtype historically?] It is central to the SS his thoughts on the state protection. Waffen SS were fighting at the front and the outer enemy, and Jews were also external enemy there. But then there were traitors, Jews and Freemasons as the inner enemy. Conspiracy is central.
13:30: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- [Lawyer Elgesem: - You talked a bit about common men's ability to do acts for political purposes, can you elaborate on the details surrounding your research on the SS-man's task and mission, that you are exempt responsibility] ideology Promotes this, that one can henskrive its responsibility to the story that makes sense to set aside moral considerations. Then there is a indoktrineringsprosess, peer pressure and propaganda. It Promotes required to participate. It is a complex relationship between ideological motivation and massacres when it comes to Norwegian cohorts. It's about the personality characteristics, propaganda and peer pressure. [Lawyer Elgesem: - Propaganda as you mentioned earlier and that the ideology should consist of myths and symbols. Forging History, it will be unique?] No, of course not. Nazi propaganda is full of distortions of history. Among other things, forgeries to document Jewish verdenssammensvergelse.
Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [Elgesem: - As regards the latter issue. We were in that Breiviik operated on their own, as a one-man terrorist cell. Are there historical parallels to the kind of thinking?] Not in the near past. It has developments as "leaderless resistance" as it is given an expression of the book "The Hunter". He had written another book that was a recipe for bombers, including in Oklahoma. "The Hunter" goes on to a lone wolf strategy. This is a strategy we know from the neo-Nazi terror as I'm sure Tore Bjørgo and others can say more about. [Elgesem: - Thank you. Do you have any more to add?] No.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Psychiatrist Torgeir Husby ask Emberland know some historical analogies to the breivik have done, where an individual has followed an ideological conviction outside a larger context, without a sense of belonging. - The only thing I'm getting at is Timothy McVeigh, said Emberland. McVeigh, or the Oklahoma bomber, was sentenced to death for blowing up a federal office building in Oklahoma in the U.S. in 1995. 168 people were killed. McVeigh was executed in 2001.
13:33: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [Cute lawsuit Torgeir Husby: I have two questions. Is there some historical analogies to our situation, where individuals without affiliation to a group commit such acts? Mass murder out of context, that is.] The closest I come is Timothy McVeigh (who was behind the bombing in Oklahoma forecast in the USA). He is an example of this. Also, we have also, for example Laser Man. [Cute lawsuit Torgeir Husby: Have you any knowledge of the factors that bring people to think and mean to do such things? War's such a factor, but is something more in our context?] The most immediate is the result of all possible communities that suddenly explodes and, for example, massacring Jews. Where conspiracy theories are spreading a deadly way, even if communities are stable before that.
13:38: Witness Terje Emberland, historian:
- [Aspaas: - You have proven historical parallels to Breivik's thinking. If you find something that does not have parallels that are unique?] No, I would rather say it like that, excuse the expression, a process of cut and paste method creates a new fusion and it is clear that his Templar-mythology is in many ways which he has developed a large extent. It's a way to legitimize bringing together Christian and national conservative. There is an element of innovation in it, even if it is fused process of many elements. [Aspaas: - This uniforms and theatrical about it?] There is no known from the extreme right and fascist movements. There are symbols, parades, uniforms and rank schemes. SS was full of this. There were awards and how to work up the structures. There were strict hierarchical and pompous forms. Studdert were many things that helped to create a stylish setting for the order of the identity.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen Emberland ask about his definsjon of fascism and whether he expects Breivik's ideology as part of the Italian fascism. Emberland answered that he uses the concept of generic fascism and that he refers to both the Italian and other forms of fascism. Eielsen is even a political scientist, and the two go into a rather academic discussion.
13:40: Witness historian Terje Emberland:
- [Straight Sørheim Psychiatrist: It was in the wake of my colleague's question, do you know what has brought some ...? I do not know it. Then we are on the borderline of what I as an historian can say. But the psychological limit of a single individual, then we are into a different field. [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: - Fascism know you often from Italy in the interwar period. Is there the political landscape to place Breivik's ideology?] No, I use the term as a generic term. There is no doubt that Breivik's ideology can not be fit into neither Mussolini fascism in the 1920s, or Hitler's Nazi government. I use the term as a generic term. [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: - Breivik has even categorized as a "militant nationalist." Do you see any connection there?] It does not. But he wants to call himself that, is something he does to distance themselves from Nazism. The fact that National Socialism is not a term you can use today, is a pragmatic reasons, not ideological. He will be collecting nationalists. National Socialists are discredited by Hitler's Nazi politics. - [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: So it's a sort of upgraded version, this?] Yes, and a new version too. [Judge Arne Lyng, I have a couple questions. This with the SS, uniforms and so on. Can you say something about the degree system in which] they had their own system. It corresponded in part to the system in the army, but with different names. So they also had a separate branch of the order with its own degrees and uniforms. [Heather: Did they do it from another organization?] It was widely from norse ideology and racist movements. They picked this symbolism and had his very own rank-order. [Heather: Also, we have seen here a special greeting from Breivik here in the audience (the fist). Reminds you of someone else?] It reminds very much of fascist greetings. It also provides a sense of Roman greetings. These are consistently among the fascists, but Breivik's greeting is no blueprint of something I've seen before.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik will comment Emberland diplomas, and Judge Wenche Arntzen points out that the two are not allowed to start a debate. Breivik argues against the history of the researcher's definition of fascism and still refuse to be part of this direction. Breivik seems irritated, and no longer the friendly voice he had when he commented interrogate Løken's testimony before the break. It is now time to break 14.05. After the break to Professor Tore Bjørgo and journalist Øyvind current witness.
13:44: Behring Anders Breivik:
- Well first of all, when it comes to fascism, there is a broad term, and as I described it, there is support for the one-party system and therefore there is left - and right fascists. I do not support one-party system, but need a transitional period of twenty years to introduce the concept of democracy. When it comes to what you mentioned that I had said the Nordic race, I have not used the word race, nor in the compendium. And I have also booked me on the use of the word, I have used the ethnic group and not the word race. I have not used the word Germanic - I've used the word Nordic. I also have reservations about using the word Germanic because it has relevance to another ideology that I do not support. I have not argued for Norwegian superiority, but survival will be the consequence. - For if nothing is done, the Norwegian ethnic group will be deconstructed within 150 years. And after 200 years there will be individuals with blue eyes. When we talk about survival and supremacy. So konspriasjonsteorier: The so-called Arabian theory is a theory, for it has been documented, including in my compendium. As far as I know, has not Emberland managed to refute the documentary evidence. - And, well ... The essence is that the Norwegian people have never been asked if they allow the country transformed into a multikutlturelt society. The nationalists have been under pressure after the Second World War is not something I claim, it is a fact I have absolutely no national socialist. I support Israel's struggle against jihadism. I think everyone, regardless of ethnic background, are brothers, so long as they assimilierer, and as long as they fight the same. The very contrary to what was said then. Thank you. [Judge Wenche Arntzen: Want to say something, Emberland] [Historian Terje Emberland: Is it necessary that I say something?] [Arntzen: Yes.]
13:45: VG:
- The Court has taken a break at 14:05.
14:06: Professor of Political Science: Tore Bjorgo:
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Professor of Political Science Tore Bjørgo is already in place in the witness box and check that the technical equipment is in order. He has with him a power point presentation called right-wing violence ideologies and terrorist rationality. Breivik introduced into their arrestforvarere, and exchanges a few words with defender Vibeke Hein berries. He is still wearing handcuffs.
14:06: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:
- As negotiations continue and we have a new expert witness in the witness box. [The witness is Tore Bjørgo and oath]
14:12: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- [prosecutor Bejer Engh: - You have made a presentation. Before you can say what kind of knowledge you have about this matter?] I am a social anthropologist and a doctorate for a thesis on racial and høyreekstem violence in Scandinavia that is perfect for this. I have done research on terrorism from 1988 to 2001. [He says that the last ten years, he has not collected as much data] I have researched a lot on terrorist theories and strategies. Why some are violent actors and why they eventually ends: radicalization - and deradikaliseringsprosesser. I have written books on the right-wing ideology and culture. [The prosecutor Bejer Engh: - What about Breivik and knowledge of him?] I was in the media a few hours after 22 July and it was those first few days. I have followed the recent debate on 22 July attacks closely, and read the compendium on the evening of 23 July, and set at night and read. I have also participated in the debate around the first psychiatric statement and assume that's why I'm here. I have read the compendium and most of the Breivik have written yourself. I have also read the first part of the second psychiatric report.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo says that he read Breivik already manifest on the night of 24 July. Although it was horrible content, there was also a familiar landscape for him, he says.
14:14: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- What I thought to do was to question the extent to which the defendant's statements and actions consistent with (...) what we know about terrorist strategies and målutvelgelse. There is some overlap with the Emberland said. When I read this compendium of the night 23 July was a terrible document and I realized that this would fremtå very strange to most people. But for me, who has been doing this for 15 years, this was a very familiar landscape. It was my first impression. But to specify my theme, it can be reformulated into a hypothesis: The defendant's statements are consistent development and can be understood based on what we know of terrorist strategies and målutvelgelse. - We also have an alternative hypothesis on psychiatry. It is a key issue here is whether the actions can be understood from the psychiatric explanations. The court has to adhere to the hypothesis they think has the best explanatory power. My expertise is in psychiatry, but I will highlight the first hypothesis. My criticism of the first psychiatric report is all the more that they do not look at other explanations than mental incapacity. It may seem like they just looking for confirmation on it, then g can be done justice errors.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo shows that Emberland talked Breivik as fascist, but he will mention Breivik's ideology as right extremism. The ideologies are partly overlapping, and Emberland comes Bjørgo into conspiracy thinking and the idea of an apocalyptic showdown with the existing world order. Bjørgo have an example of rhetoric from the neo-Nazi groups from the early 90th century is very similar to the Breivik uses in its manifesto . Like the neo-Nazis, he argues to save his people from extinction.
14:21: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- Now that we've talked about Breivik ideology fascicsme should I use the right extremism. There are other varieties of right extremism. It covers a wide range and has some common features. Who is the enemy? There may be Jews, Muslims, Communists. It varies in different varieties. But it can be secular or religious. The first common feature is that you look at people who are fundamentally different. Some say these groups are of the same value but different. The second element that also Emberland are visiting, the konspirative world that is malicious plans and conspired with internal and external enemy. It can vary greatly who is the interior. The third element is the basic understanding that "our people are threatened by the catastrophic destruction." That we face a major "disaster and elimination." The external threat is existential. "It is necessary to intervene to prevent disaster." It is also the notion of civil war, which is a key recurring theme in most cases of right extremism. There will be an "Armageddon" of a bloody settlement. Some believe it is "our job to put this in time" some people think it's farther ahead.
14:21: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- Jumps back a little to the first item: If you look at people who are fundamentally different. Human characteristics are understood based on the category they belong to. If one Jew, one is first and foremost a Jew. If one Muslim, one is, according to Breivik, really jihadist and even those who appear to be moderate are actually jihadists in sheep's clothing. This understanding disaster exists in various forms. [Shows a slide with two images]. The only way to do it is through struggle. hHis not want everything beautiful we love be destroyed. [Reading from the manifesto to Breivik] A side note: I use that page section that was in the original document, not the police's version. I have three varieties of right-wing discourses or narratives, which exemplify different ideologies.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik follows closely the text of Bjørgo show, where the professor is now putting forward the similarity between voldsdiskursene to Breivik and other islamfientlige groups. Sometimes he takes notes.
14:23: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- The first is the neo-Nazi white-power movement, where there is understanding that you are a white resistance movement against the Jews. It basically lost power after World War II. But the U.S. was thinking, where they thought that now, Jews have taken over power - it is not talking about just a threat anymore. This was popular in Europe and Sweden in particular the 80 - and 90-century. The second one against immigration. There are a few different movements there. They are more concerned with culture and nation than by race. Several of the key in the movements I looked at had participated in the resistance during World War II. The third is yes Breivik's presentation. The new defenders fighting against the third Islamic occupation. These three are quite identical in their structure and history, even if the content is different.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo presents examples of two novels by William Pierce, "Hunter" and "The Turner Diaries," which has been used by several solo terrorists as inspiration and virtually recipe for terror. Among them are Timothy McVeigh who was also mentioned by Emberland earlier today. Bjørgo Arne Myrdal also mentions as an example of a militant opponent of immigration, which has advocated violent methods to fight innvadring. Myrdal argued that Muslims came to Norway to take over our country, and that we are on the brink of civil war. Myrdal also spoke different degrees of traitors, such as Breivik does in its manifesto.
14:30: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- Which is very important in these subcultures that are written by Andrew McDonald. He is a famous American neo-Nazi. They mark a change in understanding and terrorist doctrine. These two books are ideological books. They are much more Benn read "Mein Kampf". They have inspired more terrorists. Only years after this book came out it was an organization formed "The silent brotherhood." It also formed the recipe for the Oklahoma City bomber who used a sequence in the book that recipe. What happened to those who formed the terrorist organizations were quickly infiltrated and rolled up, and to cooperate with organizations was seen as a failure. "The lone wolf" was the effective way to operate. 'Laser Man' in Sweden in the 90s and now "gun man" Malmo recently and although I do not know about Breivik know the book, it's the same operation pattern that he uses. A little more about the "Turner Diaries" [which is novel as it is referred to]. This is about "Armageddon" to do a coup and one day they make a massacre. 60,000 raseforrædere is hanged. They will get hold of nuclear missiles and send them to the Jewish metropolis of New York, Washington and Tel Aviv. It shows the purity fry no one to commit massacres to achieve this.
Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- We have many examples of how this has turned into. The journal Storm was very popular in the 1990s among Swedish Nazis. [Viewing images of this with anti-Semitic motives.] Other types of right-wing extremists, the leading ideologue of Norway, Arne Myrdahl, which operated from about 1988 to 1994. He published a book "The truth will out." He was sentenced to one year in prison for illegal explosives in connection with the fact that he was going to blow up a reception center. He was a miltant immigration opponent who advocated violent resistance. In his book he wrote [quote from the book a Muslim pionerhær to take over Norway]. I interviewed Myrdal in 1989 [quotes from the interview of a coming civil war with Muslims] Again comes the concept of civil war up and a conspiracy between enemies who would destroy us, to take world domination, and our country and people should be destroyed.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Myrdal attempted to start a collection of personal information on traitors in terms of a new traitor settlement. On the form, there were three categories with traitors, all of which are "helpers" to a Muslim takeover of Norway. Several in the audience laughs at the section that will be presented to the court. Bjørgo stresses that this is dangerous violent rhetoric, pointing out that Breivik used the same classification.
14:34: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- He said in the interview that the population would not accept it. When politicians are wondering young people would eventually resort to violence. People would rise up with violence when the politicians were out of step with the people. He also had some big ideas about himself. He also had this idea of traitors and betrayers. He formed the "Norway against immigration," and started a project called "traitor register." They searched the Data Protection Act and sent to the registration number of "traitors". I was among those who received the form from them. All lint is not as good as me. It was quite threatening. He had three kategorierer. Dignitaries who assisted the foreigners, that ministers and public servants, the other was the political traitors, as anti-rasisiter and Blitzere. The third were other traitors, as journalists and people who wrote letters to foreigners. He said information would be helpful when it came to battle. They had to be prepared. This spoke of civil war going again. This is rhetoric that kills. The third is thus Breivik compendium and mindset.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Like Emberland Bjørgo points out that there are a lot of symbolism and the knight Breivik describes as "pompous fremstllingsmåter" in the Nazi and neo-Nazi groups.
14:40: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- Here again, we find much the same. I find striking parallelism to this. He talks about the classification system of the traitors. Which is A - and B-traitors. There are political leaders who should have the death penalty and the expropriation of property. This will be a few people. Category B who are teachers, journalists, members of boards and authors in which the penalty is death and the expropriation of property. The category C is less influential. It is however worth noting that the same mindset, and noting that really was Utøya victims in category C, but states that they are category-B anyway. This is characterized by the rationalization. He describes the civil war in three phases which he describes in the compendium that we are in phase one of "shock military attacks" of the secret cells. Then comes a more conventional civil war in which one takes power in the final and third phase. He also talks about three-jihad campaigns to conquer Islam. [Mentions it from the Spanish and Ottoman war from the compendium. The third is that which takes place now, which is the mass invasion of Muslims in Europe. A demographic invasion] So he talks about the temple knight and the civil war and discusses this in detail. He justifies mass killing at least 200,000 Christian Europeans. He argues that it is correct, because there are traitors.
14:41: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- This legitimization of mass murder, I have not found similar examples of the general literature of the counter-jihadists. But it's not hard to find among neo-Nazis and old Nazis. There are not many years since we see something of the same unfolding in the former Yugoslavia, performed by some of Breivik's heroes. We are not accustomed to think of mass murder in our time and culture. Traditional symbols are dynktet in blood, and is now useless. The knight and crusader symbols are common among right-wing extremists in England and France than in Norway if we had no nobility who could handle this. Breivik says that the purpose was to unite nationalists in Europe. - When he realized that mentioned that the National Socialist symbols were unusable because of all that hung by, and would introduce an alternative knight symbolism. But it is doubtful whether it was successful. Embla was also at this brand and martyr cult. The novel "The Turner Diaries" ends with a suicide action. This was written in 1978, not 2001. So little in the end about the characteristics of terrorism. It's planning acts of violence to create fear or threaten to create fear. There is agreement on the core, but pretty much disagreement about the demarcation of what constitutes terrorism. We are talking about using violence to achieve a goal. The more spectacular violence and the worse it, the better for many. Al Qaeda has the cultivated this. But it varies. For example, ventrevridde terrorists had more specific goals, traditionally. There will be violence that does more harm than the act itself. Therefore it is important after seeing what the terrorists want, and not do what they want. Thus, succeeded to the Norwegian people well after 22 July, that he achieved what he wanted.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo Breivik notes that have been successful in its strategy to gain more awareness of the compendium, and that this is the easiest strategy for a terrorist act. He thinks that Breivik's dream of creating a revolution through the witch hunt in the cultural conservatives who thus will take to arms, is a recipe for failure. There are no historical examples of terrorist organizations that have succeeded with this strategy, he said.
14:48: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- Then there are a number of strategies that terrorists use. The communication strategy, to get attention and convey the message. If you use the violence, it is enough. Terrorists do it often by sending out the manifest or an explanation. The second is the inability to act or overreaskjoner. There are different varieties of it, but to create fear makes people react in different ways. The Red Army made an effort to provoke repression to again provoke revolution. The first was that Breivik successful communication strategy. The main purpose was to promote the compendium in which he conveyed his message. "The rest were fireworks" he said. He succeeded to a large extent with this. He got much more attention to the compendium than if he had not done so. It is the simplest strategy. The second is the crisis maximization. There he explained in court 17 april where he said that the purpose was to provoke a witch hunt. The more people lose faith in democracy will be revolutionary. He says there have been that he has hoped for. He will not have an immediate "boost". It is classic crisis maximization strategy that we see in the Red Army faction.
Comments from VG's Eve Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo enter Breivik's negotiating strategy when he was arrested by the police, and asks rhetorically whether knight codex his his importance to a situation in which he agreed to disclose information about other so-called cells in order to have a computer with wikipedia. Psychiatrist Terje Tørrissen look closely at Breivik when Bjørgo say this, but Breivik shows no visible reaction.
14:48: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- It looks like a sophisticated strategy. But it has only one weakness: It is a recipe for fiakso. I know of no examples of some terrorists who have succeeded in creating revolution with this strategy. Terrorists have come to power, but not with this strategy. So it's a recipe for failure. Breivik put forward the claim Utøya and the first court hearing in August where he said that this is a coup and he demanded that the death penalty was introduced and he would have access to a PC, including Wikipedia. He threatened consequences if this would not be met. So it is a bit especially when changing information if he got a PC. He quickly gave up the political criteria, but would be silent on the two he was cellekommandat for, to get a PC on the cell. It's a bit special. One might ask whether it is in accordance with the Knight Code. - Over to it with målutvelgelsen. How do terrorists their goals? There we were illustrated in Breivik's explanation. It has been researched a part of it. Within the action is a terrorist, so defined potential targets and should be weighed against the mitigating factors. One of the most important thing is whether it will be accepted as legitimate by potential supporters. Certainly from that too many innocent people may repel people. Breivik opted out of 1 May train at Youngstorget and APs headquarters, because the Tourist Association has offices there. The degree of such self-restriction may vary. Al Qaeda has at least enough of it. Nationalists often quite severe limitations. Another is the capacity. Number of men, weapons, etc. Breivik had to make do with a car bomb rather than five, because he did not have enough. There is much that can explain how he ended up Utøya. Another element is how hard the goal is to meet with security and so on, where is Utøya is softer one.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik always carefully guarded by many arrestforvarere and police officers. They sit behind him on both sides of the dock. Bjørgo have from Breivik's rhetoric, strategy, actions and goals concluded that he is a right-wing terrorist. He points out that one must look at the context of assessing the Breivik's psyche, if one considers him as a part of mainstream society or in a smaller environment that is right-wing terrorist and oriented. The president Bjørgo many strange aspects of Breivik that he does not understand, including his attitude to women, the explanation about the Knights Templar and the negative exposure of several family members in their own manifesto. Terje Tørrissen pay close attention to when Bjørgo Breivik says this.
14:59: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- When you then select a less attractive or legitimate target comes a rationalization for which he did in relation to the AUF-holders. He said they had elected. They still qualify for Category-B. After Breivik's testimony in court as he ressonnerte in court right after the book as terrorists do. So until the end: why they fail most of the planned terrorist attacks? There are two main reasons, they are discovered by the police and security services because they are careless and amateurish. You have to be overly cautious. There was something Breivik did. He avoided being detected and the other gunner is their lack of operational expertise. The fact that such bomb explode error, where the bomb is not well enough designed. Breivik avoided the two mistakes and succeeded in their action plans. He carried out a terrorist act that is the most comprehensive and complex solo terrorist act. Oklahoma City bomber killed several, but they were two. The reason he succeeded was that he had a strong security awareness and taking precautions, but it meant that he was not discovered. He avoided to attract more partners because it was prudent to act alone. I've done a little statistic the last 2.5 years and it has been 9 terrorist attempts. Five solo - and four group-based. Each of the four group-based discovery. All five of the attacks went solo under the radar. Two were successful: Breivik 22 July and "Gun Man". Three were unsuccessful because they blew themselves up.
Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- He had significant komptanse to make a bomb and a strong implementation capacity. Avslutningvis: To return to the starting point: My explanation so far has shown that Breivik's statements and actions are largely consistent with the hypothesis. He appears as a distinctly right-wing terrorist. While there are some features of what he has said and done, that does not always give an explanation. His inflated self-image, his selfishness, his views on women, the way he hangs out his family members, he seems to feel flat, which is odd. The distinction between fantasy and reality is somewhat unclear when he speaks of KT Network. There is no one here in court, I think, who doubt that the defendant has a real image that is highly divergent. Compared to most Norwegians, he spins torment crazy. But he compares with the most militant sections of the right-wing culture, he is not as deviant. But much of what he says is an expression of a collective perception of reality, which is shared by many in the extreme culture of his. - It is not certain that his extreme expressions and actions can be seen as an expression of psychopathology. The court must decide what is best explained by hypotheses (insane or not). [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: He's accused of the terrorist section, whether he is sane or not. You touched upon how he is. Reality bursting or not. Can you say something in general who are terrorists?] I've written a bit about this. There are various people who are attracted to extremist groups. There are also various types of tipping over and the terrorists. There are those who are idealists and have a cause they are fighting for or on behalf of, you have those who primarily seek affiliation and perhaps protection, and the third are those that are primarily driven by aggression and frustration. They often have a difficult childhood behind. There are three main types. Breivik is primarily the first type, I would say. [Engh: You say it is characteristic of him that does not fit. Among other things, that he is feeling flat. Do you have any impression on those who do this are følelsesavflatet] It's probably great variation. But the main image ... It has been researched extensively, and most are remarkably normal. [Engh: You mean within the normal emotional] Well .. I know too little about it, to put it that way. I have good colleagues I have spoken with ... But to go into such a rationality, so .. To express little sympathy with the victim does not mean you do not feel different inside. I have interviewed defectors from such organizations, and they tell about the difficulties of doing things contrary to their feelings. It is rarely found mental illness in terroroganisasjoner, because they will be sorted out. We see plenty more of it among solo terrorists.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo commented that he also notes that Breivik følelsesavflatet works, and that this is inconsistent with the kind of terrorist he mainly sees him like that. He points out that other terrorists laser man in Sweden, has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome.
15:08: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- Should I take examples. from Sweden, "Laser Man" in Stockholm in the 90s. He killed more than two people and shot ten. "Gun Man" also shot entirely on egehånd. They have been diagnosed with Asperger's that gives the personal qualities that make them have a narrow focus for a long time. When one is yes in the Swedish context, as far as I understand criminally sane. [The prosecutor Engh: - So did you pull at him and things he wrote] I made the big eyes on what he wrote about family and close friends. There is some weird stuff that I think is odd. Clearly also his violent self as he was Europe's savior was very grand, but you will find some tendencies in this neo-Nazis. [The prosecutor Engh: - You think about the role he gives himself] Yes, it is very large [prosecutor Engh: - Have you seen it in your research?] I've witnessed it. [User Myrdal as an example] There was some truth in it [to the Myrdal-example], he was a leader. Breivik paint a grand picture of himself as an actor. He managed to make an action so it is not without foundation. [The prosecutor Engh: - As you mentioned selfishness?]
15:09: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- These idealists tend to be more concerned (...) than others. It was very violent, with a very focused on themselves. He writes about his looks and how wonderful the successful businessman he is, and how he was attractive to women, an image that unraveled quite powerful when the trial began. (...) I know that the same thought probably to be found in this environment to be implemented. I also suggested that it has not come forward information that substantiates that this organization exists, even in a moderated form. Is this a delusion or a representation as he wants it to be? Is it a deliberate lie, or is it something that he believes exists or is it a glossy picture of something that exists or something he wants to create. I will not deny that there is something in it. [The prosecutor Holden: - It is not a secret that we think Kights Templar does not exist. Do you have examples of terrorists claim an affiliation with an organization that does not exist?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Engh ask Bjørgo know of other terrorists who claimed to have been part of a large organization while in reality they have operated alone. Bjørgo says that one of the most important neo-Nazi activists in the nineties described himself as a leader of a major resistance movement, which turned out to be was only a few boys and a dog. - It's a bit like four sweaty guys in a basement that we have heard of. It was a magnificent production, to put it that way, says Bjørgo. It laughs in the audience. All rights psychiatrists glances at Breivik, who do not show any significant reaction. Breivik have mentioned that the so-called inaugural meeting in London may have consisted of "four sweaty guys in a basement."
15:13: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- Firstly, it is often the case when there is an action that someone takes responsibility. We saw 22 July also. I have not looked for examples of exaggerations now, but it is quite common. I remember a key neo-Nazi who led what they called "einsatskommando", which was portrayed as a big deal, but in reality, three boys and a dog. The reality is often much less than what is being portrayed. [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Think of the time, Engh. There are others who will ask questions, too.] [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Yes, I have only a couple more. Have you ever heard anyone call himself a knight before?] No. [The prosecutor Engh: Do you know anything about this community recognize the means Breivik have used?] I have not followed the online debate. It has, however, the next witness, I think. [The prosecutor Engh: Have there been researched at some extreme tip?] Yes, very much. Especially after the London bombings and the murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands. Where young people are suddenly committing horrific acts. It has found some answers, and there are a variety of reasons and processes. For some, the external events, like Norway or Denmark is at war in Afghanistan or Iraq. This we have seen. Police Abuse, whose Red Army Fraktion, can provide effects. And we have it with purely personal thing. The man who murdered Theo Van Gogh lost his mother and had personal problems. It beat out of him. [The prosecutor Engh: But one step further ... When is the extremist crazy?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lippestad Bjørgo ask about the use of cover-ups in preparation of terrorist attacks, and whether it is common. Bjørgo confirms that it is common, but said also that he did not know of other such extensive cover-ups as they Breivik made, such as involving illegal diamond trade and the cultivation of sugar beets. - I have not heard that someone has rented an entire farm before, he said. Vibeke Hein Bæra ask what Bjørgo thought about the choice of words when he read Breivik compendium, considering that the first two experts rated Breivik's use of terms such as so-called neologisms, or reorganization. - With some of the concepts I thought they were quite unsuccessful, while others thought I was going to stick to, say Bjørgo. He believes that the terms "suicidal humanist" and "cultural Marxist" will be remembered. - The word cultural Marxist is backed up by the fact that he killed 77 people, so unfortunately we can not forget it, he said. He points out that many concepts introduced in the political debate, without the special odd.
15:18: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- [prosecutor Engh: - Breivik has the even pulled out the Una-bomber who was in the 90s. He has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Do you have any thoughts on that?] No, I know the Una-bomber, but not seen for psychiatric assessment. [Defense Lippestad: - What you did not say anything more about this course is to stay under the radar. Breivik have told you about a number of cover stories. He says he is traveling with a purpose and it is another. In this research is to have cover stories common among those who are planning an action?] I can not detail this here. If you have someone who goes to a training camp in Pakistan is under the deck that you should visit a relative. It is not uncommon. It's pretty typical. Collects Mon material for a bomb, you will have a normal household tasks you should do. He went a long way in creating a cover story on the farm. It was hardly surprising. I've heard of others who have rented buildings. [Defense Lippestad ask the witness's perception of Breivik's willingness to get a PC and negotiate]. No, not so direct, but part of what he apparently wanted to name his accomplices in this bargaining game. He said later that it was stupid, but it's an unusual strategy. I interpret it more as a terrible strategy, lrisemaksinmeringsktategi. To emphasize that the others were out there. I think it was a threat and not a real action.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo argues that Arne Myrdal would hardly have accepted mass murder of Utøya or bomb in the government quarter, although he also encouraged the use of violence to prevent mass immigration.
15:21: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- [Defendant Hein carry: - Prosecutors were in the use of the word ridderjustituarius, but there are also other concepts. When you read the lecture notes and concepts that have been described as pompous new words, what were your thoughts?] Neon of the terms were unsuccessful, others have the potential to adhere and summarizes a number of well-known argument in the anti-Islam groups. They claim it is a misguided humanism behind immigration. The argument was quite successful rhetoric. The term "kulturmarxister" remains as it is connected with killing 77 people. Therefore we can not forget it. How politicians are trying to promote a cause, see the world in a slightly different way. Siv Jensen spoke about the "sneak-islamifisering." They were a hit, to some extent. We see a number of other new words and concepts which very often falls to the ground. Jagland government tried to "The Norwegian house." There was a short house, in many ways. That way, it's no wonder that many of the concepts introduced will never catch on, but some will. We also get the new word presented every Friday in the "News on the New." So this is now become entertainment. [Defendant Hein Bæra: - Not uncommon it is. Thank you.] - [Coordinating counsel Frode Elgesem: A few short questions. You quoted Myrdal, where he says Muslims will conquer Europe and that there will be civil war. Is there anything that has a reach beyond himself? Is there a move to protect the role of right-wing extremist?] He told you there was resistance groups across the country. Someone should have guns. He was a leader for them, largely because he was convicted of planning a violent reaction. He was probably the one in Norway that had the most appeal to these constituencies. His scale was still treason settlement, with something like 30 that was executed, and he had plenty more stringent limits on violence than Breivik. It will be the type that is ideologically driven to do this. They may well succeed well in life. The man who blew up a bus in London was a successful young man. [Elgesem Lawyer: Can you quickly sum up your criticism against the first expert report?] They excluded from the initial ideology he assumed. This avoids the perspectives, and it is a dubious way to understand an action. They also lacked expertise. It reminds me of two psychiatrists who travel to the jungles of Borneo to assess the accountability of people there. The lack of cultural competence.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lawyer asks Frode Elgesem Bjørgo to account for the criticism he has made against the first expert report. He believes that it is questionable to consider Breivik's psyche without taking into account the ideological framework Breivik has taken its inspiration from. - I think the conclusion rests on an unsound or partly false premises, he said.
15:27: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- The third element was judged when he thought he was under surveillance by the security services and that he explores the house avlyttning. It was interpreted as paranoid delusions it was in my opinion, very quixotic. [Lawyer Elgesem: - Is there anything else they should be analyzed further?] We've talked about neologisms which I knew very well what means, because I have the reference frames in, but for some to interpret them in a psychiatric framework. But much of what they write may not sound like a good review. Some of the assessments rests on false premises. [Lawyer Elgesem: - What about this with the civil war?] I have not applied to how many times it is mentioned, but it draws this conclusion of civil war, as they say it's paranoid delusions, but it is the basic idea of the right-wing terror.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
District Court Judge Arne Lyng Bjørgo ask if he knows the terms Sørheim and Husby perceived as new words or neologisms, such as nasjonaldarwinist. Bjørgo says he does not know all the terms before, but that it is common to link together several words in this way in the political discourse. - The linking hated categories, we see much of. The way to do that is common, but these particular connections Breivik has made, I have not been studied so closely, says Bjørgo. Breivik wanted to make a comment to the explanation of the last witness, but was not allowed by Arntzen of time considerations. She has the whole day stressed that the court must be raised no later than half past four today. When the court went to a femminnutters pause before the last witness, would not give up Breivik that he would comment. - But the judge. When it is so important witnesses, it is important that I get the opportunity to Z. .. he began. - Breivik, we have no time for it today, said Arntzen short while she left the judges bench.
15:31: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- [Judge Lyng: - The new words we have mentioned, do you mean that it is the defendant who has added the words or have you heard earlier. I think of the words mentioned in the expert report, which nasjonaldarwinist. Do you think the defendant is found on this yourself?] I have not Googled those terms, but those statements I thought was "best" I investigated. that suicidal humanist. Kulturbolsjeviker's a variant of the cultural Marxist. To connect hated categories, we see much of. The way to do that is common, but just the link Breivik made, I have not been studied very carefully. [Judge Arntzen: - Hovedhypotesten your: Building on the forutstningen that ideology comes before the desire for violence?] Not necessarily. People who go into an extreme group does not require a desire to exercise violence. They are all violence as a consequence of the fact that they have entered the environment. A few are primarily ideologically driven, others adapt their reality insofar else after that. This is also described as "cognitive dissonance". But for some ideologies come first. Very often it is not so. - [Judge Arntzen: Can you imagine someone needing to be seen and want to show, you can use ideology as a superstructure?] Yes, it is entirely possible that someone with certain psychological propensities want searches to an environment that fits. [Attorney Lippestad: I have a request for a brief comment from the accused?] [Arntzen Judge: We have no time. Then he must take it tomorrow. We have only one hour. It is possible that we have to expose him.] [Lawyer Larsen: The next witness has traveled from the West Coast. I do not know if he can come tomorrow.] [Defendant Breivik: But the judge. When it is so important witnesses, it is important that I get the opportunity to Z. ..] [Arntzen Judge: We do not have time, Breivik] The court pauses until 12:35.
Professor of Political Science Tore Bjørgo is already in place in the witness box and check that the technical equipment is in order. He has with him a power point presentation called right-wing violence ideologies and terrorist rationality. Breivik introduced into their arrestforvarere, and exchanges a few words with defender Vibeke Hein berries. He is still wearing handcuffs.
14:06: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:
- As negotiations continue and we have a new expert witness in the witness box. [The witness is Tore Bjørgo and oath]
14:12: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- [prosecutor Bejer Engh: - You have made a presentation. Before you can say what kind of knowledge you have about this matter?] I am a social anthropologist and a doctorate for a thesis on racial and høyreekstem violence in Scandinavia that is perfect for this. I have done research on terrorism from 1988 to 2001. [He says that the last ten years, he has not collected as much data] I have researched a lot on terrorist theories and strategies. Why some are violent actors and why they eventually ends: radicalization - and deradikaliseringsprosesser. I have written books on the right-wing ideology and culture. [The prosecutor Bejer Engh: - What about Breivik and knowledge of him?] I was in the media a few hours after 22 July and it was those first few days. I have followed the recent debate on 22 July attacks closely, and read the compendium on the evening of 23 July, and set at night and read. I have also participated in the debate around the first psychiatric statement and assume that's why I'm here. I have read the compendium and most of the Breivik have written yourself. I have also read the first part of the second psychiatric report.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo says that he read Breivik already manifest on the night of 24 July. Although it was horrible content, there was also a familiar landscape for him, he says.
14:14: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- What I thought to do was to question the extent to which the defendant's statements and actions consistent with (...) what we know about terrorist strategies and målutvelgelse. There is some overlap with the Emberland said. When I read this compendium of the night 23 July was a terrible document and I realized that this would fremtå very strange to most people. But for me, who has been doing this for 15 years, this was a very familiar landscape. It was my first impression. But to specify my theme, it can be reformulated into a hypothesis: The defendant's statements are consistent development and can be understood based on what we know of terrorist strategies and målutvelgelse. - We also have an alternative hypothesis on psychiatry. It is a key issue here is whether the actions can be understood from the psychiatric explanations. The court has to adhere to the hypothesis they think has the best explanatory power. My expertise is in psychiatry, but I will highlight the first hypothesis. My criticism of the first psychiatric report is all the more that they do not look at other explanations than mental incapacity. It may seem like they just looking for confirmation on it, then g can be done justice errors.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo shows that Emberland talked Breivik as fascist, but he will mention Breivik's ideology as right extremism. The ideologies are partly overlapping, and Emberland comes Bjørgo into conspiracy thinking and the idea of an apocalyptic showdown with the existing world order. Bjørgo have an example of rhetoric from the neo-Nazi groups from the early 90th century is very similar to the Breivik uses in its manifesto . Like the neo-Nazis, he argues to save his people from extinction.
14:21: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- Now that we've talked about Breivik ideology fascicsme should I use the right extremism. There are other varieties of right extremism. It covers a wide range and has some common features. Who is the enemy? There may be Jews, Muslims, Communists. It varies in different varieties. But it can be secular or religious. The first common feature is that you look at people who are fundamentally different. Some say these groups are of the same value but different. The second element that also Emberland are visiting, the konspirative world that is malicious plans and conspired with internal and external enemy. It can vary greatly who is the interior. The third element is the basic understanding that "our people are threatened by the catastrophic destruction." That we face a major "disaster and elimination." The external threat is existential. "It is necessary to intervene to prevent disaster." It is also the notion of civil war, which is a key recurring theme in most cases of right extremism. There will be an "Armageddon" of a bloody settlement. Some believe it is "our job to put this in time" some people think it's farther ahead.
14:21: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- Jumps back a little to the first item: If you look at people who are fundamentally different. Human characteristics are understood based on the category they belong to. If one Jew, one is first and foremost a Jew. If one Muslim, one is, according to Breivik, really jihadist and even those who appear to be moderate are actually jihadists in sheep's clothing. This understanding disaster exists in various forms. [Shows a slide with two images]. The only way to do it is through struggle. hHis not want everything beautiful we love be destroyed. [Reading from the manifesto to Breivik] A side note: I use that page section that was in the original document, not the police's version. I have three varieties of right-wing discourses or narratives, which exemplify different ideologies.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik follows closely the text of Bjørgo show, where the professor is now putting forward the similarity between voldsdiskursene to Breivik and other islamfientlige groups. Sometimes he takes notes.
14:23: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- The first is the neo-Nazi white-power movement, where there is understanding that you are a white resistance movement against the Jews. It basically lost power after World War II. But the U.S. was thinking, where they thought that now, Jews have taken over power - it is not talking about just a threat anymore. This was popular in Europe and Sweden in particular the 80 - and 90-century. The second one against immigration. There are a few different movements there. They are more concerned with culture and nation than by race. Several of the key in the movements I looked at had participated in the resistance during World War II. The third is yes Breivik's presentation. The new defenders fighting against the third Islamic occupation. These three are quite identical in their structure and history, even if the content is different.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo presents examples of two novels by William Pierce, "Hunter" and "The Turner Diaries," which has been used by several solo terrorists as inspiration and virtually recipe for terror. Among them are Timothy McVeigh who was also mentioned by Emberland earlier today. Bjørgo Arne Myrdal also mentions as an example of a militant opponent of immigration, which has advocated violent methods to fight innvadring. Myrdal argued that Muslims came to Norway to take over our country, and that we are on the brink of civil war. Myrdal also spoke different degrees of traitors, such as Breivik does in its manifesto.
14:30: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- Which is very important in these subcultures that are written by Andrew McDonald. He is a famous American neo-Nazi. They mark a change in understanding and terrorist doctrine. These two books are ideological books. They are much more Benn read "Mein Kampf". They have inspired more terrorists. Only years after this book came out it was an organization formed "The silent brotherhood." It also formed the recipe for the Oklahoma City bomber who used a sequence in the book that recipe. What happened to those who formed the terrorist organizations were quickly infiltrated and rolled up, and to cooperate with organizations was seen as a failure. "The lone wolf" was the effective way to operate. 'Laser Man' in Sweden in the 90s and now "gun man" Malmo recently and although I do not know about Breivik know the book, it's the same operation pattern that he uses. A little more about the "Turner Diaries" [which is novel as it is referred to]. This is about "Armageddon" to do a coup and one day they make a massacre. 60,000 raseforrædere is hanged. They will get hold of nuclear missiles and send them to the Jewish metropolis of New York, Washington and Tel Aviv. It shows the purity fry no one to commit massacres to achieve this.
Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- We have many examples of how this has turned into. The journal Storm was very popular in the 1990s among Swedish Nazis. [Viewing images of this with anti-Semitic motives.] Other types of right-wing extremists, the leading ideologue of Norway, Arne Myrdahl, which operated from about 1988 to 1994. He published a book "The truth will out." He was sentenced to one year in prison for illegal explosives in connection with the fact that he was going to blow up a reception center. He was a miltant immigration opponent who advocated violent resistance. In his book he wrote [quote from the book a Muslim pionerhær to take over Norway]. I interviewed Myrdal in 1989 [quotes from the interview of a coming civil war with Muslims] Again comes the concept of civil war up and a conspiracy between enemies who would destroy us, to take world domination, and our country and people should be destroyed.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Myrdal attempted to start a collection of personal information on traitors in terms of a new traitor settlement. On the form, there were three categories with traitors, all of which are "helpers" to a Muslim takeover of Norway. Several in the audience laughs at the section that will be presented to the court. Bjørgo stresses that this is dangerous violent rhetoric, pointing out that Breivik used the same classification.
14:34: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- He said in the interview that the population would not accept it. When politicians are wondering young people would eventually resort to violence. People would rise up with violence when the politicians were out of step with the people. He also had some big ideas about himself. He also had this idea of traitors and betrayers. He formed the "Norway against immigration," and started a project called "traitor register." They searched the Data Protection Act and sent to the registration number of "traitors". I was among those who received the form from them. All lint is not as good as me. It was quite threatening. He had three kategorierer. Dignitaries who assisted the foreigners, that ministers and public servants, the other was the political traitors, as anti-rasisiter and Blitzere. The third were other traitors, as journalists and people who wrote letters to foreigners. He said information would be helpful when it came to battle. They had to be prepared. This spoke of civil war going again. This is rhetoric that kills. The third is thus Breivik compendium and mindset.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Like Emberland Bjørgo points out that there are a lot of symbolism and the knight Breivik describes as "pompous fremstllingsmåter" in the Nazi and neo-Nazi groups.
14:40: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- Here again, we find much the same. I find striking parallelism to this. He talks about the classification system of the traitors. Which is A - and B-traitors. There are political leaders who should have the death penalty and the expropriation of property. This will be a few people. Category B who are teachers, journalists, members of boards and authors in which the penalty is death and the expropriation of property. The category C is less influential. It is however worth noting that the same mindset, and noting that really was Utøya victims in category C, but states that they are category-B anyway. This is characterized by the rationalization. He describes the civil war in three phases which he describes in the compendium that we are in phase one of "shock military attacks" of the secret cells. Then comes a more conventional civil war in which one takes power in the final and third phase. He also talks about three-jihad campaigns to conquer Islam. [Mentions it from the Spanish and Ottoman war from the compendium. The third is that which takes place now, which is the mass invasion of Muslims in Europe. A demographic invasion] So he talks about the temple knight and the civil war and discusses this in detail. He justifies mass killing at least 200,000 Christian Europeans. He argues that it is correct, because there are traitors.
14:41: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- This legitimization of mass murder, I have not found similar examples of the general literature of the counter-jihadists. But it's not hard to find among neo-Nazis and old Nazis. There are not many years since we see something of the same unfolding in the former Yugoslavia, performed by some of Breivik's heroes. We are not accustomed to think of mass murder in our time and culture. Traditional symbols are dynktet in blood, and is now useless. The knight and crusader symbols are common among right-wing extremists in England and France than in Norway if we had no nobility who could handle this. Breivik says that the purpose was to unite nationalists in Europe. - When he realized that mentioned that the National Socialist symbols were unusable because of all that hung by, and would introduce an alternative knight symbolism. But it is doubtful whether it was successful. Embla was also at this brand and martyr cult. The novel "The Turner Diaries" ends with a suicide action. This was written in 1978, not 2001. So little in the end about the characteristics of terrorism. It's planning acts of violence to create fear or threaten to create fear. There is agreement on the core, but pretty much disagreement about the demarcation of what constitutes terrorism. We are talking about using violence to achieve a goal. The more spectacular violence and the worse it, the better for many. Al Qaeda has the cultivated this. But it varies. For example, ventrevridde terrorists had more specific goals, traditionally. There will be violence that does more harm than the act itself. Therefore it is important after seeing what the terrorists want, and not do what they want. Thus, succeeded to the Norwegian people well after 22 July, that he achieved what he wanted.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo Breivik notes that have been successful in its strategy to gain more awareness of the compendium, and that this is the easiest strategy for a terrorist act. He thinks that Breivik's dream of creating a revolution through the witch hunt in the cultural conservatives who thus will take to arms, is a recipe for failure. There are no historical examples of terrorist organizations that have succeeded with this strategy, he said.
14:48: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- Then there are a number of strategies that terrorists use. The communication strategy, to get attention and convey the message. If you use the violence, it is enough. Terrorists do it often by sending out the manifest or an explanation. The second is the inability to act or overreaskjoner. There are different varieties of it, but to create fear makes people react in different ways. The Red Army made an effort to provoke repression to again provoke revolution. The first was that Breivik successful communication strategy. The main purpose was to promote the compendium in which he conveyed his message. "The rest were fireworks" he said. He succeeded to a large extent with this. He got much more attention to the compendium than if he had not done so. It is the simplest strategy. The second is the crisis maximization. There he explained in court 17 april where he said that the purpose was to provoke a witch hunt. The more people lose faith in democracy will be revolutionary. He says there have been that he has hoped for. He will not have an immediate "boost". It is classic crisis maximization strategy that we see in the Red Army faction.
Comments from VG's Eve Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo enter Breivik's negotiating strategy when he was arrested by the police, and asks rhetorically whether knight codex his his importance to a situation in which he agreed to disclose information about other so-called cells in order to have a computer with wikipedia. Psychiatrist Terje Tørrissen look closely at Breivik when Bjørgo say this, but Breivik shows no visible reaction.
14:48: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- It looks like a sophisticated strategy. But it has only one weakness: It is a recipe for fiakso. I know of no examples of some terrorists who have succeeded in creating revolution with this strategy. Terrorists have come to power, but not with this strategy. So it's a recipe for failure. Breivik put forward the claim Utøya and the first court hearing in August where he said that this is a coup and he demanded that the death penalty was introduced and he would have access to a PC, including Wikipedia. He threatened consequences if this would not be met. So it is a bit especially when changing information if he got a PC. He quickly gave up the political criteria, but would be silent on the two he was cellekommandat for, to get a PC on the cell. It's a bit special. One might ask whether it is in accordance with the Knight Code. - Over to it with målutvelgelsen. How do terrorists their goals? There we were illustrated in Breivik's explanation. It has been researched a part of it. Within the action is a terrorist, so defined potential targets and should be weighed against the mitigating factors. One of the most important thing is whether it will be accepted as legitimate by potential supporters. Certainly from that too many innocent people may repel people. Breivik opted out of 1 May train at Youngstorget and APs headquarters, because the Tourist Association has offices there. The degree of such self-restriction may vary. Al Qaeda has at least enough of it. Nationalists often quite severe limitations. Another is the capacity. Number of men, weapons, etc. Breivik had to make do with a car bomb rather than five, because he did not have enough. There is much that can explain how he ended up Utøya. Another element is how hard the goal is to meet with security and so on, where is Utøya is softer one.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik always carefully guarded by many arrestforvarere and police officers. They sit behind him on both sides of the dock. Bjørgo have from Breivik's rhetoric, strategy, actions and goals concluded that he is a right-wing terrorist. He points out that one must look at the context of assessing the Breivik's psyche, if one considers him as a part of mainstream society or in a smaller environment that is right-wing terrorist and oriented. The president Bjørgo many strange aspects of Breivik that he does not understand, including his attitude to women, the explanation about the Knights Templar and the negative exposure of several family members in their own manifesto. Terje Tørrissen pay close attention to when Bjørgo Breivik says this.
14:59: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- When you then select a less attractive or legitimate target comes a rationalization for which he did in relation to the AUF-holders. He said they had elected. They still qualify for Category-B. After Breivik's testimony in court as he ressonnerte in court right after the book as terrorists do. So until the end: why they fail most of the planned terrorist attacks? There are two main reasons, they are discovered by the police and security services because they are careless and amateurish. You have to be overly cautious. There was something Breivik did. He avoided being detected and the other gunner is their lack of operational expertise. The fact that such bomb explode error, where the bomb is not well enough designed. Breivik avoided the two mistakes and succeeded in their action plans. He carried out a terrorist act that is the most comprehensive and complex solo terrorist act. Oklahoma City bomber killed several, but they were two. The reason he succeeded was that he had a strong security awareness and taking precautions, but it meant that he was not discovered. He avoided to attract more partners because it was prudent to act alone. I've done a little statistic the last 2.5 years and it has been 9 terrorist attempts. Five solo - and four group-based. Each of the four group-based discovery. All five of the attacks went solo under the radar. Two were successful: Breivik 22 July and "Gun Man". Three were unsuccessful because they blew themselves up.
Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- He had significant komptanse to make a bomb and a strong implementation capacity. Avslutningvis: To return to the starting point: My explanation so far has shown that Breivik's statements and actions are largely consistent with the hypothesis. He appears as a distinctly right-wing terrorist. While there are some features of what he has said and done, that does not always give an explanation. His inflated self-image, his selfishness, his views on women, the way he hangs out his family members, he seems to feel flat, which is odd. The distinction between fantasy and reality is somewhat unclear when he speaks of KT Network. There is no one here in court, I think, who doubt that the defendant has a real image that is highly divergent. Compared to most Norwegians, he spins torment crazy. But he compares with the most militant sections of the right-wing culture, he is not as deviant. But much of what he says is an expression of a collective perception of reality, which is shared by many in the extreme culture of his. - It is not certain that his extreme expressions and actions can be seen as an expression of psychopathology. The court must decide what is best explained by hypotheses (insane or not). [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: He's accused of the terrorist section, whether he is sane or not. You touched upon how he is. Reality bursting or not. Can you say something in general who are terrorists?] I've written a bit about this. There are various people who are attracted to extremist groups. There are also various types of tipping over and the terrorists. There are those who are idealists and have a cause they are fighting for or on behalf of, you have those who primarily seek affiliation and perhaps protection, and the third are those that are primarily driven by aggression and frustration. They often have a difficult childhood behind. There are three main types. Breivik is primarily the first type, I would say. [Engh: You say it is characteristic of him that does not fit. Among other things, that he is feeling flat. Do you have any impression on those who do this are følelsesavflatet] It's probably great variation. But the main image ... It has been researched extensively, and most are remarkably normal. [Engh: You mean within the normal emotional] Well .. I know too little about it, to put it that way. I have good colleagues I have spoken with ... But to go into such a rationality, so .. To express little sympathy with the victim does not mean you do not feel different inside. I have interviewed defectors from such organizations, and they tell about the difficulties of doing things contrary to their feelings. It is rarely found mental illness in terroroganisasjoner, because they will be sorted out. We see plenty more of it among solo terrorists.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo commented that he also notes that Breivik følelsesavflatet works, and that this is inconsistent with the kind of terrorist he mainly sees him like that. He points out that other terrorists laser man in Sweden, has been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome.
15:08: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- Should I take examples. from Sweden, "Laser Man" in Stockholm in the 90s. He killed more than two people and shot ten. "Gun Man" also shot entirely on egehånd. They have been diagnosed with Asperger's that gives the personal qualities that make them have a narrow focus for a long time. When one is yes in the Swedish context, as far as I understand criminally sane. [The prosecutor Engh: - So did you pull at him and things he wrote] I made the big eyes on what he wrote about family and close friends. There is some weird stuff that I think is odd. Clearly also his violent self as he was Europe's savior was very grand, but you will find some tendencies in this neo-Nazis. [The prosecutor Engh: - You think about the role he gives himself] Yes, it is very large [prosecutor Engh: - Have you seen it in your research?] I've witnessed it. [User Myrdal as an example] There was some truth in it [to the Myrdal-example], he was a leader. Breivik paint a grand picture of himself as an actor. He managed to make an action so it is not without foundation. [The prosecutor Engh: - As you mentioned selfishness?]
15:09: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- These idealists tend to be more concerned (...) than others. It was very violent, with a very focused on themselves. He writes about his looks and how wonderful the successful businessman he is, and how he was attractive to women, an image that unraveled quite powerful when the trial began. (...) I know that the same thought probably to be found in this environment to be implemented. I also suggested that it has not come forward information that substantiates that this organization exists, even in a moderated form. Is this a delusion or a representation as he wants it to be? Is it a deliberate lie, or is it something that he believes exists or is it a glossy picture of something that exists or something he wants to create. I will not deny that there is something in it. [The prosecutor Holden: - It is not a secret that we think Kights Templar does not exist. Do you have examples of terrorists claim an affiliation with an organization that does not exist?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Engh ask Bjørgo know of other terrorists who claimed to have been part of a large organization while in reality they have operated alone. Bjørgo says that one of the most important neo-Nazi activists in the nineties described himself as a leader of a major resistance movement, which turned out to be was only a few boys and a dog. - It's a bit like four sweaty guys in a basement that we have heard of. It was a magnificent production, to put it that way, says Bjørgo. It laughs in the audience. All rights psychiatrists glances at Breivik, who do not show any significant reaction. Breivik have mentioned that the so-called inaugural meeting in London may have consisted of "four sweaty guys in a basement."
15:13: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- Firstly, it is often the case when there is an action that someone takes responsibility. We saw 22 July also. I have not looked for examples of exaggerations now, but it is quite common. I remember a key neo-Nazi who led what they called "einsatskommando", which was portrayed as a big deal, but in reality, three boys and a dog. The reality is often much less than what is being portrayed. [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Think of the time, Engh. There are others who will ask questions, too.] [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Yes, I have only a couple more. Have you ever heard anyone call himself a knight before?] No. [The prosecutor Engh: Do you know anything about this community recognize the means Breivik have used?] I have not followed the online debate. It has, however, the next witness, I think. [The prosecutor Engh: Have there been researched at some extreme tip?] Yes, very much. Especially after the London bombings and the murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands. Where young people are suddenly committing horrific acts. It has found some answers, and there are a variety of reasons and processes. For some, the external events, like Norway or Denmark is at war in Afghanistan or Iraq. This we have seen. Police Abuse, whose Red Army Fraktion, can provide effects. And we have it with purely personal thing. The man who murdered Theo Van Gogh lost his mother and had personal problems. It beat out of him. [The prosecutor Engh: But one step further ... When is the extremist crazy?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lippestad Bjørgo ask about the use of cover-ups in preparation of terrorist attacks, and whether it is common. Bjørgo confirms that it is common, but said also that he did not know of other such extensive cover-ups as they Breivik made, such as involving illegal diamond trade and the cultivation of sugar beets. - I have not heard that someone has rented an entire farm before, he said. Vibeke Hein Bæra ask what Bjørgo thought about the choice of words when he read Breivik compendium, considering that the first two experts rated Breivik's use of terms such as so-called neologisms, or reorganization. - With some of the concepts I thought they were quite unsuccessful, while others thought I was going to stick to, say Bjørgo. He believes that the terms "suicidal humanist" and "cultural Marxist" will be remembered. - The word cultural Marxist is backed up by the fact that he killed 77 people, so unfortunately we can not forget it, he said. He points out that many concepts introduced in the political debate, without the special odd.
15:18: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- [prosecutor Engh: - Breivik has the even pulled out the Una-bomber who was in the 90s. He has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Do you have any thoughts on that?] No, I know the Una-bomber, but not seen for psychiatric assessment. [Defense Lippestad: - What you did not say anything more about this course is to stay under the radar. Breivik have told you about a number of cover stories. He says he is traveling with a purpose and it is another. In this research is to have cover stories common among those who are planning an action?] I can not detail this here. If you have someone who goes to a training camp in Pakistan is under the deck that you should visit a relative. It is not uncommon. It's pretty typical. Collects Mon material for a bomb, you will have a normal household tasks you should do. He went a long way in creating a cover story on the farm. It was hardly surprising. I've heard of others who have rented buildings. [Defense Lippestad ask the witness's perception of Breivik's willingness to get a PC and negotiate]. No, not so direct, but part of what he apparently wanted to name his accomplices in this bargaining game. He said later that it was stupid, but it's an unusual strategy. I interpret it more as a terrible strategy, lrisemaksinmeringsktategi. To emphasize that the others were out there. I think it was a threat and not a real action.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Bjørgo argues that Arne Myrdal would hardly have accepted mass murder of Utøya or bomb in the government quarter, although he also encouraged the use of violence to prevent mass immigration.
15:21: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- [Defendant Hein carry: - Prosecutors were in the use of the word ridderjustituarius, but there are also other concepts. When you read the lecture notes and concepts that have been described as pompous new words, what were your thoughts?] Neon of the terms were unsuccessful, others have the potential to adhere and summarizes a number of well-known argument in the anti-Islam groups. They claim it is a misguided humanism behind immigration. The argument was quite successful rhetoric. The term "kulturmarxister" remains as it is connected with killing 77 people. Therefore we can not forget it. How politicians are trying to promote a cause, see the world in a slightly different way. Siv Jensen spoke about the "sneak-islamifisering." They were a hit, to some extent. We see a number of other new words and concepts which very often falls to the ground. Jagland government tried to "The Norwegian house." There was a short house, in many ways. That way, it's no wonder that many of the concepts introduced will never catch on, but some will. We also get the new word presented every Friday in the "News on the New." So this is now become entertainment. [Defendant Hein Bæra: - Not uncommon it is. Thank you.] - [Coordinating counsel Frode Elgesem: A few short questions. You quoted Myrdal, where he says Muslims will conquer Europe and that there will be civil war. Is there anything that has a reach beyond himself? Is there a move to protect the role of right-wing extremist?] He told you there was resistance groups across the country. Someone should have guns. He was a leader for them, largely because he was convicted of planning a violent reaction. He was probably the one in Norway that had the most appeal to these constituencies. His scale was still treason settlement, with something like 30 that was executed, and he had plenty more stringent limits on violence than Breivik. It will be the type that is ideologically driven to do this. They may well succeed well in life. The man who blew up a bus in London was a successful young man. [Elgesem Lawyer: Can you quickly sum up your criticism against the first expert report?] They excluded from the initial ideology he assumed. This avoids the perspectives, and it is a dubious way to understand an action. They also lacked expertise. It reminds me of two psychiatrists who travel to the jungles of Borneo to assess the accountability of people there. The lack of cultural competence.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lawyer asks Frode Elgesem Bjørgo to account for the criticism he has made against the first expert report. He believes that it is questionable to consider Breivik's psyche without taking into account the ideological framework Breivik has taken its inspiration from. - I think the conclusion rests on an unsound or partly false premises, he said.
15:27: Witness Tore Bjørgo, Professor:
- The third element was judged when he thought he was under surveillance by the security services and that he explores the house avlyttning. It was interpreted as paranoid delusions it was in my opinion, very quixotic. [Lawyer Elgesem: - Is there anything else they should be analyzed further?] We've talked about neologisms which I knew very well what means, because I have the reference frames in, but for some to interpret them in a psychiatric framework. But much of what they write may not sound like a good review. Some of the assessments rests on false premises. [Lawyer Elgesem: - What about this with the civil war?] I have not applied to how many times it is mentioned, but it draws this conclusion of civil war, as they say it's paranoid delusions, but it is the basic idea of the right-wing terror.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
District Court Judge Arne Lyng Bjørgo ask if he knows the terms Sørheim and Husby perceived as new words or neologisms, such as nasjonaldarwinist. Bjørgo says he does not know all the terms before, but that it is common to link together several words in this way in the political discourse. - The linking hated categories, we see much of. The way to do that is common, but these particular connections Breivik has made, I have not been studied so closely, says Bjørgo. Breivik wanted to make a comment to the explanation of the last witness, but was not allowed by Arntzen of time considerations. She has the whole day stressed that the court must be raised no later than half past four today. When the court went to a femminnutters pause before the last witness, would not give up Breivik that he would comment. - But the judge. When it is so important witnesses, it is important that I get the opportunity to Z. .. he began. - Breivik, we have no time for it today, said Arntzen short while she left the judges bench.
15:31: Witness Professor Tore Bjørgo:
- [Judge Lyng: - The new words we have mentioned, do you mean that it is the defendant who has added the words or have you heard earlier. I think of the words mentioned in the expert report, which nasjonaldarwinist. Do you think the defendant is found on this yourself?] I have not Googled those terms, but those statements I thought was "best" I investigated. that suicidal humanist. Kulturbolsjeviker's a variant of the cultural Marxist. To connect hated categories, we see much of. The way to do that is common, but just the link Breivik made, I have not been studied very carefully. [Judge Arntzen: - Hovedhypotesten your: Building on the forutstningen that ideology comes before the desire for violence?] Not necessarily. People who go into an extreme group does not require a desire to exercise violence. They are all violence as a consequence of the fact that they have entered the environment. A few are primarily ideologically driven, others adapt their reality insofar else after that. This is also described as "cognitive dissonance". But for some ideologies come first. Very often it is not so. - [Judge Arntzen: Can you imagine someone needing to be seen and want to show, you can use ideology as a superstructure?] Yes, it is entirely possible that someone with certain psychological propensities want searches to an environment that fits. [Attorney Lippestad: I have a request for a brief comment from the accused?] [Arntzen Judge: We have no time. Then he must take it tomorrow. We have only one hour. It is possible that we have to expose him.] [Lawyer Larsen: The next witness has traveled from the West Coast. I do not know if he can come tomorrow.] [Defendant Breivik: But the judge. When it is so important witnesses, it is important that I get the opportunity to Z. ..] [Arntzen Judge: We do not have time, Breivik] The court pauses until 12:35.
15:40: Eurofascist Author: Oyvind Stromme:
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
The court is now taking a short break before a journalist Øyvind stream will testify. He has for years sought unde the right extremist groups online, and is considered an expert in the area. Stream has recently published the book "Dark Web". Arntzen smiles and nods briefly to Øyvind flow in the witness box before she sits straight.
15:40: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:
- As negotiations continue and we have now received the final expert witness is Øyvind Stream. [The witness oath] When you ask questions, do not you use all the time questioning. [The judge chides prosecutors with a pretty strict voice] [The prosecutor Holden: - It has been received] [The witness oath]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Øivind Strømmen says he has spent years following the debate on the right wing and right wing web forum. He has read the books recommended here and also followed the research in this area. He has worked as a journalist, not as a researcher. Power agrees that Breivik's ideology can be seen as fascism, but also refers to the movement kontrajihadisme, who is also a fascist. In counter-jihadism is the ideas of an external enemy (Islam will take over) and an internal enemy (the political elite as a facilitator), prominent.
15:47: Witness Øivind Strømmen, journalist:
- [prosecutor Holden: - Yes, Strommen, can you explain us a little closer on how to clean practically have been working on this field?] Yes, this was something that began to interest me by several different reasons for five or six years ago. What I have done is to follow the radical and extreme right-wing websites while I have been deposited in the literature which has been recommended as the research literature and history. At the same time what has happened in the right-wing ideology in Norway and other European countries. [The prosecutor Holden: - How do you follow along with it?] It's all about follow the network and follow the general news. It will be released literature and there is research - and journalistic literature I have read. It's been done as a journalist's approach, I have not driven research. I have been trying to find the stories and see how it has evolved as a contemporary phenomenon.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Stream has studied Breivik's manifesto carefully, pointing out several inconsistencies in the texts Breivik has referred to. Among other things, refusing Breivik to have taken inspiration from National Socialism, as he reproduces several texts from the artist Saga, which itself is located within the National Socialist tradition. Power also points out that Breivik has plagiarized the so-called Una-bomber, Ted Kaczynski, his manifesto by replacing a few words. Breivik notes diligently while the current talking, but shows no signs of reacting to his explanation.
15:50: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- [prosecutor Holden: - How would you characterize Breivik views or ideology?] In short, I share Emberland definition of ideology as fascist. I take inspiration from the same definition that uses Griffen, who has emerged a new consensus. It is the starting point. Fascism as such can accommodate many different things. It's not that there is one specific ideology in which all agree on everything. In the defendant's so-called manifesto, it is clear that much of his world view where we are under some form of occupation, a secret conspiracy with Muslims as the external enemy and the internal enemy, Norwegian immigrant-friendly politicians. Contra-jihadism, as a specific ideological movement, have certain characteristics that are unique. At the same time there are also elements of his thinking. He draws on national socialism. He refers to as militant nationalists. He has referred to the terrorists who have been active in Germany. There is actually a reference to the Nazis, he comes with. In the so-called manifesto refers him to a Swedish artist, but is located within the National Socialist tradition. (...)
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Many of the audience left the hall during the break. Among the audience that remains is still very quiet, except for the sound of the journalists who frequently notes on their laptops.
15:52: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- This denies Breivik of the so-called manifesto, as he refers to songs and reviews of pure National Socialists. You will also find that his ideas are taken from elsewhere. So much is taken from kontrajihadister, and much of the Norwegian blogger "Fjordman". There are also examples of very many kinds of other ideologies. He has plagiarized texts of the extreme right (referring to the author), where he has only exchanged a few words. He has, for example, replacing America with Europe and put into kulturmarxisme a couple of places. Moreover, it is not an original concept, but is used in several places and by many groups. [The prosecutor Svein Holden: Is there anything that distinguishes him from the traditional right-wing extremist?] Now's the landscape he is in. .. He has put together a cut and paste ideology, but he is most at home as kontrajihadist, also, he has drawn into ideas from neo-Nazis, for example the slide king. The defendant uses the word more tribal and ethnic groups, he also stressed here in court ... It is quite common that the extreme right does not speak directly about race anymore ... But even Breivik talking about racial mixing and has a list of racial categories, only that he calls the tribes. It is not unusual to make it so.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Stream says that those who support Breivik violence are very few, especially when it comes to mass murder of Utøya. He says Breivik has far fewer supporters than he expressed, from what he himself has studied online. Lippestad wonder if it is not difficult for most people to express the written support of Breivik's actions, and whether there might be something supporting him without saying anything about it. Power points out that most people who express support is anonymous, and that it therefore is difficult to estimate, but that it is possible to read from their profiles who express support and who says things they do not mean.
15:59: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- The racial theories mentioned and put in front of them, are not ideas that can be associated with one type of ideology. It should be noted that within this counter-jihadi community sees that they think racial thinking such as 'Fjordman'. [The prosecutor Holden: - Can you say something about "Fjord man" position within the counter-jihadists?] He is a major ideologue internationally. His essays are mostly quoted and reproduced on several websites. They have been translated into several European languages. [The prosecutor Holden: - Are there any differences between "Fjord Man" and Breivik] Yes, the difference is "Fjordman" has never been directly advocated violence or terrorism as an instrument. He has defended the ethnic cleansing that can not be done without violence. "It may solve the alleged problems in Europe." He has argued that "you have to arm themselves and take the necessary rules." However, not directly to violence. It appears from the so-called Manifesto which has been the subject of the court that Breivik has not only resorted to violence, but look at it as something else should turn to, and which he urges. [The prosecutor Holden: - Are there others who support Breivik's views on violence?] There are the examples of it when looking at this in retrospect, then, one could find people out there who express support and sympathy for the defendant to disclose the attitude and actions he has performed. It's not that we are talking about many people but few. There are a number of expressing sympathy to the bomb against the Government buildings, but not Utøya. There are far fewer people express sympathy than the defendant than think themselves in court. It is not insignificant degree and they are associated with more traditional extremism that neo-Nazism. - [prosecutor Holden: - There are fewer expressing the Utøya larger than what he himself has suggested in court? Could it be elaborated?] On the types of sites affecting the ideological message that is similar to the defendant. And when one looks at things like shared on social media, those who share a lot of the ideas, still has problems with the violent actions and look at it as an expression of madness. [The prosecutor Holden: - When should I take the judge's signal seriously and say thank you there.] [Judge Arntzen: - Does the defender have any questions?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lippestad will once again into this new arrangement with the flow and ask whether the terms in the compendium are new to him, or he does not understand. - It is highly specific concepts that appear nykonstruksjoner, but the two words that they are composed of concepts is not unusual, said Stream. At the same time he says that the terms do not necessarily give so much meaning, and describes them as "unsuccessful reorganization."
16:02: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- [Attorney Lippestad: You say that there are some who expressed support for the actions too. Is it written on the web?] Yes, it does occur. [Attorney Lippestad: If you were to estimate. It must be a great Boyg to provide written know that you support this. With your knowledge, there are several that support it inside, do you think? But as for understandable reasons, do not flag it?] It is possible. But much of the written support coming from anonymous comments. So you do not know what they really express. Whether it's mental, fill or immaturity. But some of those who write with profiles, anonymous profiles, writes often about more things and are not just web roll. He's supposed to also have received letters tear that supports him. We have also seen an interview from the United States with a young man. But there are a small minority that supports this, and even a minority of those who support the attitudes, actions actually supports. [Attorney Lippestad: You mentioned the word kulturmarxister. Are there any concepts in the manifesto that you think are unique?] What you put the the unique? But it is clear there are expressions, which are also in the experts' reports, as you will not find many matches. It may seem like nykonstruksjon. But it's often just two words put together, which is not so unusual. [Attorney Lippestad: Are there any of those concepts that does not make sense to you?] No ... I will not argue. But there are some that come close, and has no clear meaning. Suicidal Humanist, for example, fair enough to understand, but some others are not. There are a number of unsuccessful reorganization.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Defender Vibeke Hein Bæra want to know what current thinking that it is difficult for people with Breivik's political beliefs to come to the media. - To get to the media, then you have to be able to express themselves with decency. There are a lot of political exaggerated opinions that do not have trouble getting to, say Stream. He stressed that it is very common in these online communities to consider it not to come with a feature article or a letter as an attack on free speech. - If so, I would have been a victim of lack of freedom of expression, for there is much I've written that have not been in print, says Power, to chuckles from the audience. Breivik several times in his statement laid the blame for the July 22 attacks on the media because he believes he did not get to in the political debate.
16:09: Witness Øivind Strømmen, journalist:
- [Defense Bæra: - With a background as a journalist who has followed these groups for 7-8 years. Can you tell us about your decision to speak in other media than in the community, typically those with an editor and against the defendant explained: that to make themselves heard in the media has been difficult] To be heard in the media requires being able to express and write under ordinary decency. But many have not been able to do it or maybe utrrykke up properly. In this type of ideology is an important part of the show. We see it as not in print as an attack on free speech. There are many things I've written that have not been in print, it is also difficult in the right-wing ideology. [Defense consequences: - It is a main part in the debate on the community?] Yes, you can read in your debates with the major media that they use the freedom of expression in organs of the largest of these. When you look at some right wing and extreme environment, one finds that they think that censorship is a common and what they imagine.
Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- [Lawyer Elgesem: - What degree have you participated in the debate on 22 July-case and what you have studied in this connection?] 23 July I wrote a short text on my own website, where I tried to put Breivik in an ideological context. This led to a relatively strong demand from the media, so I've been in the media since then, and pronounced me a lot about it. I have lectured for a lot of players, both private and public, and has contributed to a book that has come out with academic response to the claims of the right extremist groups, and has written a book yourself, and keep on writing a book to. [Lawyer Elgesem: - Also, have you written a contribution to 22 July Commission?] It's about trends in the Norwegian far right, from the 1930s to the present day. What continuities and fractures can be seen. It shows a part of the same quotes from Arne Myrdal, where it is considered unparalleled in its thinking. [Lawyer Elgesem: - You use the fascist definition mentioned earlier. Can you tell us more about it?] Where do I utgangpsunkt in the definition of Roger Griffin: A national through the state, which is necessary because we are facing a crisis, ideas about inner and outer enemies. One can also look at other definitions fascism. Masculinity principle is found in several texts defendants have included in their so-called manifesto. Griffin will point to a new elite (...). There's some of what the defendant himself has written in his fomanifest. He is more specific about their future prospects.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
- The extent to which it is customary to use the Web as a form of communication in these environments? Ask Frode Elgesem. - When they consider themselves to be discriminated against, it is customary to use the Internet or other channels to come out with its message, it applies to both the extreme right and radical Muslims, says Stream.
Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- I must say that his future prospects have strong parallels with totalitarian regimes, as in Iran. [Lawyer Elgesem: With vokterråd, and ..] Yes. [Lawyer Elgesem How do you assess the threat today?] There is a violence potential in the right-wing thinking. It is difficult to assess a threat, and I do not envy those who have the job, but I relate largely to what is being done by the PST and their Danish colleagues. The threat may not come from organized environment, but from individuals who are putting together their own version. [Lawyer Elgesem: It sounds like Breivik] Yes. [Elgesem Lawyer: So this is a trend you see?] The attack on Utøya, not the attack on the Government buildings, is a scale that is unusual. This can not expect to see much of. But serial murders and attacks on Muslim buildings are examples of violence that is more likely. We have seen the Laser Man 2 in Sweden, the murder of Florence in Italy, and other cases. [Lawyer Elgesem: How important are online and discussions in the environment?] Network is an opportunity to spread the message to all the extremists.
Comments from VG's Eve Therese Grøttum:
Power comes with several examples of actions and events that are understood as part of a larger conspiracy, for example, that there has been an initiative called the "Eur-Arab dialogue" and that it is taught in Arabic at European universities. - On the way there is a kernel of reality in it, but it is drawn into a big conspiracy theory that Islam will take over Europe, he explains.
16:21: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- [Lawyer Elgesem: - It is incitement to terrorism is that correct?] It occurs, but is not common. So one must differentiate between romance and violence, glorification of violence, perception of crusaders and former war heroes who have been highlighted as romantic idols and it is relatively much. And the Knights Templar, this blogger Paul Ray who was to start "English defense league" in his time, he has spoken and that it will come back to the Templar order, and he wants to die as a martyr. It is not unheard of and unprecedented either. Then there are the more so and more striking in this respect, with the civil war shows that are reasonably common, if one looks at the extreme right and radical environment that is within democracy. And I think it's interesting to see what is stated in the first expert report that I have read, and the things that are posted online. In the first report states that: [Stream refers here from their report] 'Observanden thought he was at war and ethnic cleansing is taking place in London. " This is then referred to as he is suffering from a paranoid delusional system. In a comment field where both the defendant and blogger "Fjordman" part. [Below is a brief summary of what the current quote what was written in the comments], "My prediction is that the EU is resolution within twenty years and it is a civil war within the ... This is world history's greatest betrayal. " It is very similar performances in the report. [Lawyer Elgesem: - Is it in other writers?] Yes, there are the counter-jihadi community.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
It is now counsel Frode Elgesem asking the Stream. It was the coordinating aid lawyers asked prosecutors to take on its current list of expert witnesses, and Arntzen gave a clear message that they should get plenty of time to ask him questions.
16:23: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- [Judge Arntzen: - Has the date for what you read aloud?] Not right now. But this was before 22 July. It was in a comment field where Fjordman wrote in response to a comment from Breivik. [Assistance Attorney Elgesem: - Was it also a dialogue between them?] It is said to have been e-mail exchange between them, but I can not explain me. The police have any say. [Assistance Attorney Elgesem: - Can you say something about Eurabia concept?] It is believed that Europe is occupied primarily through cooperation between Arab countries and parties on the left side of European politics. These ideas have largely been linked to documents in the EU context, including the EU's proximity policy. It is politics that goes on among other things, to promote the teaching of Arabic language at the universities. Also literary conference in Venice. Has there been cooperation between European and Arab countries, it quickly emerged as a part of this conspiracy. (...) It is in this Eurabia theory to a powerful partnership with a major Arabization of Europe, although the forum is dominated by conflict. - In a prospective, including Israel, while Norway does not. But it is used as an example of islamifisering. It is typical. One finds a core of facts, and then rub on Mon with hatred, lies and propaganda. If anyone discuss it, then go really hard on Mon - especially to see the lies. Conspiracy must therefore be about to change Europe, and make the indigenous oppressed. And then there are theories that the politicians work together and contribute to this. The following is the theories that are not related to the Nazi mass murder, so it's not as discredited. [Elgesem Lawyer: How many people support this?] It depends on what level of conspiracy theories lies. Eurabia is used broadly. The same with rhetoric. [Lawyer Elgesem: Fjordman (blogger) wrote an article that everyone should arm themselves both mentally and with guns. This blurred line between news and covert perception of terrorism, is that normal?] This I do not perceive as an incitement to violence. But dystopian world images with treacherous authorities romance and violence are not uncommon.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Stream has repeatedly emphasized that the blogger Fjordman, or Peder Jensen Nøstvold, has not called for mass murder even though he has been an inspiration to Breivik. He points out however that he understood the article "A new declaration of independence", which Breivik has put in the manifesto, as dangerous. In their article Fjordman that there must be "necessary steps" (Appropriate Measures) if governments and bodies like the EU does not stop the alleged Islamization of Europe. - In retrospect, one can ask what the necessary steps are. Many criticize Peder Jensen for it, but I do not. If I criticize Peder Jensen for anything, it is that he advocates a fascist ideology and ethnic cleansing, says Stream.
Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- But it is clear that does not mean that, for example, "Fjordman" and leading writers have called for it. They have called for ethnic cleansing and mass murder is not. [Lawyer Elgesem: - He ("Fjordman") has written a text that Breivik has been included in the compendium. He concludes that violence is the only action. Are you surprised that the article comes here in the compendium?] No, I'm not surprised, it was published in 2007, but it does not encourage violence. When I read this article as I thought it is a dangerous article. He asked a number of specific requirements for what should be done. The European Union should be dissolved, claims that multiculturalism should be rejected and that all aid to Palestine shall terminate and Muslim immigration should cease. Should not be met, "we shall take the appropriate steps." It is easy to be wise after the event and it is easy to criticize Peder Jensen and say that it is an incitement of violence, but I will not. It is clear that it is no coincidence that this text and the name of this text shows up in contexts where one can see that it is "Appropriate Measures." - [Lawyer Larsen: - It is the use of falsehood in propgandistisk context. Can you say something about this in Breivik's ideology?] This lies and hatpropagandaen will not opppfattes like that of all who use it. But the allegations are spread even if they do not hold water. One can only look to history for examples. [Lawyer Larsen:-And what's the point?] To incite to hatred and often resistance or to adopt measures that ... yes. [Lawyer Larsen: - Can you briefly comment on a cell line of thought. Do you know anything of that phenomenon?] A cell-thinking has gradually emerged in the extreme-right. Americans have expressed concern about it from the Islamic sources. one can look at Curtis in the 1990s. He started his career as a terrorist in 1993 and wanted to create a violent reaction against what he thought was Jewish control of the United States. He stated that the aim is to use encelleterrorisme because it is difficult to detect. It is also found in the Manifesto to defendants. On his own website, he published a kind of points system for lone wolves, and even used the term "Lone Wolf", which would be given scores of different killers. He also had ideas about the medals that were awarded to effective terrorists. - So that there is nothing unique in the right extreme of thinking. That the single-cell strategy is not uncommon in terrorism. [Cute lawsuit Husby: Part of the reason why we are here is that the text means different things to two people. You said Utøya was unusual. What do you mean?] There are several things, in the historical context of terrorism. One is the scale of the attack. If one assumes that he was alone, so it is a very large angrept in historical context. The second is the type of target. Unarmed youths are not a common target for terrorists. There have been bombs in discotheques and the like, and the attack in Beslan, and school shootings. It is very special and it must be regarded as such. I do not think the danger lies in the type of attack in the future. [Cute lawsuit Husby: Because] It takes a bet that most people will have great difficulty to implement. [Judge Arntzen: Have any of the other experts question? No? When we say thank you, Stream.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Husby wondering possibility that Fjord Mans texts can affect different people differently, and what the current opinion that Utøya is an attack that is special and probably will not happen again. - One is the scale of the attack, if we assume that he was alone that we have the making, it's a very big attack an individual. The second is the type of target, unarmed youths, it is not a common target for terrorists. It is an example of bombs on disco, and the closest thing is maybe the attack in Beslan, or school murders. It is special and I do not think the danger lies in the type of attack. - Why not? Husby asked. - Because it requires an effort that I think most people will be able to implement, said Stream. Breivik was not able to make their comments today, and will probably have to do it tomorrow. He applied handcuffs and led out of their arrestforvarere.
16:37: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:
- I just want to plan for tomorrow. Lippestad you have an update to come by. [Defense consequences: - The few changes to the witnesses for tomorrow. Frank Aarebrot and Brynjar Lia before lunch and after lunch is Lars Gule]. That means Ostby and Hærland lapses. [Defense Bæra: - We must also set aside time for Breivik we missed today] When the court adjourned.
[Source: VG: AM : PM] [Translation: Breivik Report]
The court is now taking a short break before a journalist Øyvind stream will testify. He has for years sought unde the right extremist groups online, and is considered an expert in the area. Stream has recently published the book "Dark Web". Arntzen smiles and nods briefly to Øyvind flow in the witness box before she sits straight.
15:40: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:
- As negotiations continue and we have now received the final expert witness is Øyvind Stream. [The witness oath] When you ask questions, do not you use all the time questioning. [The judge chides prosecutors with a pretty strict voice] [The prosecutor Holden: - It has been received] [The witness oath]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Øivind Strømmen says he has spent years following the debate on the right wing and right wing web forum. He has read the books recommended here and also followed the research in this area. He has worked as a journalist, not as a researcher. Power agrees that Breivik's ideology can be seen as fascism, but also refers to the movement kontrajihadisme, who is also a fascist. In counter-jihadism is the ideas of an external enemy (Islam will take over) and an internal enemy (the political elite as a facilitator), prominent.
15:47: Witness Øivind Strømmen, journalist:
- [prosecutor Holden: - Yes, Strommen, can you explain us a little closer on how to clean practically have been working on this field?] Yes, this was something that began to interest me by several different reasons for five or six years ago. What I have done is to follow the radical and extreme right-wing websites while I have been deposited in the literature which has been recommended as the research literature and history. At the same time what has happened in the right-wing ideology in Norway and other European countries. [The prosecutor Holden: - How do you follow along with it?] It's all about follow the network and follow the general news. It will be released literature and there is research - and journalistic literature I have read. It's been done as a journalist's approach, I have not driven research. I have been trying to find the stories and see how it has evolved as a contemporary phenomenon.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Stream has studied Breivik's manifesto carefully, pointing out several inconsistencies in the texts Breivik has referred to. Among other things, refusing Breivik to have taken inspiration from National Socialism, as he reproduces several texts from the artist Saga, which itself is located within the National Socialist tradition. Power also points out that Breivik has plagiarized the so-called Una-bomber, Ted Kaczynski, his manifesto by replacing a few words. Breivik notes diligently while the current talking, but shows no signs of reacting to his explanation.
15:50: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- [prosecutor Holden: - How would you characterize Breivik views or ideology?] In short, I share Emberland definition of ideology as fascist. I take inspiration from the same definition that uses Griffen, who has emerged a new consensus. It is the starting point. Fascism as such can accommodate many different things. It's not that there is one specific ideology in which all agree on everything. In the defendant's so-called manifesto, it is clear that much of his world view where we are under some form of occupation, a secret conspiracy with Muslims as the external enemy and the internal enemy, Norwegian immigrant-friendly politicians. Contra-jihadism, as a specific ideological movement, have certain characteristics that are unique. At the same time there are also elements of his thinking. He draws on national socialism. He refers to as militant nationalists. He has referred to the terrorists who have been active in Germany. There is actually a reference to the Nazis, he comes with. In the so-called manifesto refers him to a Swedish artist, but is located within the National Socialist tradition. (...)
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Many of the audience left the hall during the break. Among the audience that remains is still very quiet, except for the sound of the journalists who frequently notes on their laptops.
15:52: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- This denies Breivik of the so-called manifesto, as he refers to songs and reviews of pure National Socialists. You will also find that his ideas are taken from elsewhere. So much is taken from kontrajihadister, and much of the Norwegian blogger "Fjordman". There are also examples of very many kinds of other ideologies. He has plagiarized texts of the extreme right (referring to the author), where he has only exchanged a few words. He has, for example, replacing America with Europe and put into kulturmarxisme a couple of places. Moreover, it is not an original concept, but is used in several places and by many groups. [The prosecutor Svein Holden: Is there anything that distinguishes him from the traditional right-wing extremist?] Now's the landscape he is in. .. He has put together a cut and paste ideology, but he is most at home as kontrajihadist, also, he has drawn into ideas from neo-Nazis, for example the slide king. The defendant uses the word more tribal and ethnic groups, he also stressed here in court ... It is quite common that the extreme right does not speak directly about race anymore ... But even Breivik talking about racial mixing and has a list of racial categories, only that he calls the tribes. It is not unusual to make it so.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Stream says that those who support Breivik violence are very few, especially when it comes to mass murder of Utøya. He says Breivik has far fewer supporters than he expressed, from what he himself has studied online. Lippestad wonder if it is not difficult for most people to express the written support of Breivik's actions, and whether there might be something supporting him without saying anything about it. Power points out that most people who express support is anonymous, and that it therefore is difficult to estimate, but that it is possible to read from their profiles who express support and who says things they do not mean.
15:59: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- The racial theories mentioned and put in front of them, are not ideas that can be associated with one type of ideology. It should be noted that within this counter-jihadi community sees that they think racial thinking such as 'Fjordman'. [The prosecutor Holden: - Can you say something about "Fjord man" position within the counter-jihadists?] He is a major ideologue internationally. His essays are mostly quoted and reproduced on several websites. They have been translated into several European languages. [The prosecutor Holden: - Are there any differences between "Fjord Man" and Breivik] Yes, the difference is "Fjordman" has never been directly advocated violence or terrorism as an instrument. He has defended the ethnic cleansing that can not be done without violence. "It may solve the alleged problems in Europe." He has argued that "you have to arm themselves and take the necessary rules." However, not directly to violence. It appears from the so-called Manifesto which has been the subject of the court that Breivik has not only resorted to violence, but look at it as something else should turn to, and which he urges. [The prosecutor Holden: - Are there others who support Breivik's views on violence?] There are the examples of it when looking at this in retrospect, then, one could find people out there who express support and sympathy for the defendant to disclose the attitude and actions he has performed. It's not that we are talking about many people but few. There are a number of expressing sympathy to the bomb against the Government buildings, but not Utøya. There are far fewer people express sympathy than the defendant than think themselves in court. It is not insignificant degree and they are associated with more traditional extremism that neo-Nazism. - [prosecutor Holden: - There are fewer expressing the Utøya larger than what he himself has suggested in court? Could it be elaborated?] On the types of sites affecting the ideological message that is similar to the defendant. And when one looks at things like shared on social media, those who share a lot of the ideas, still has problems with the violent actions and look at it as an expression of madness. [The prosecutor Holden: - When should I take the judge's signal seriously and say thank you there.] [Judge Arntzen: - Does the defender have any questions?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lippestad will once again into this new arrangement with the flow and ask whether the terms in the compendium are new to him, or he does not understand. - It is highly specific concepts that appear nykonstruksjoner, but the two words that they are composed of concepts is not unusual, said Stream. At the same time he says that the terms do not necessarily give so much meaning, and describes them as "unsuccessful reorganization."
16:02: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- [Attorney Lippestad: You say that there are some who expressed support for the actions too. Is it written on the web?] Yes, it does occur. [Attorney Lippestad: If you were to estimate. It must be a great Boyg to provide written know that you support this. With your knowledge, there are several that support it inside, do you think? But as for understandable reasons, do not flag it?] It is possible. But much of the written support coming from anonymous comments. So you do not know what they really express. Whether it's mental, fill or immaturity. But some of those who write with profiles, anonymous profiles, writes often about more things and are not just web roll. He's supposed to also have received letters tear that supports him. We have also seen an interview from the United States with a young man. But there are a small minority that supports this, and even a minority of those who support the attitudes, actions actually supports. [Attorney Lippestad: You mentioned the word kulturmarxister. Are there any concepts in the manifesto that you think are unique?] What you put the the unique? But it is clear there are expressions, which are also in the experts' reports, as you will not find many matches. It may seem like nykonstruksjon. But it's often just two words put together, which is not so unusual. [Attorney Lippestad: Are there any of those concepts that does not make sense to you?] No ... I will not argue. But there are some that come close, and has no clear meaning. Suicidal Humanist, for example, fair enough to understand, but some others are not. There are a number of unsuccessful reorganization.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Defender Vibeke Hein Bæra want to know what current thinking that it is difficult for people with Breivik's political beliefs to come to the media. - To get to the media, then you have to be able to express themselves with decency. There are a lot of political exaggerated opinions that do not have trouble getting to, say Stream. He stressed that it is very common in these online communities to consider it not to come with a feature article or a letter as an attack on free speech. - If so, I would have been a victim of lack of freedom of expression, for there is much I've written that have not been in print, says Power, to chuckles from the audience. Breivik several times in his statement laid the blame for the July 22 attacks on the media because he believes he did not get to in the political debate.
16:09: Witness Øivind Strømmen, journalist:
- [Defense Bæra: - With a background as a journalist who has followed these groups for 7-8 years. Can you tell us about your decision to speak in other media than in the community, typically those with an editor and against the defendant explained: that to make themselves heard in the media has been difficult] To be heard in the media requires being able to express and write under ordinary decency. But many have not been able to do it or maybe utrrykke up properly. In this type of ideology is an important part of the show. We see it as not in print as an attack on free speech. There are many things I've written that have not been in print, it is also difficult in the right-wing ideology. [Defense consequences: - It is a main part in the debate on the community?] Yes, you can read in your debates with the major media that they use the freedom of expression in organs of the largest of these. When you look at some right wing and extreme environment, one finds that they think that censorship is a common and what they imagine.
Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- [Lawyer Elgesem: - What degree have you participated in the debate on 22 July-case and what you have studied in this connection?] 23 July I wrote a short text on my own website, where I tried to put Breivik in an ideological context. This led to a relatively strong demand from the media, so I've been in the media since then, and pronounced me a lot about it. I have lectured for a lot of players, both private and public, and has contributed to a book that has come out with academic response to the claims of the right extremist groups, and has written a book yourself, and keep on writing a book to. [Lawyer Elgesem: - Also, have you written a contribution to 22 July Commission?] It's about trends in the Norwegian far right, from the 1930s to the present day. What continuities and fractures can be seen. It shows a part of the same quotes from Arne Myrdal, where it is considered unparalleled in its thinking. [Lawyer Elgesem: - You use the fascist definition mentioned earlier. Can you tell us more about it?] Where do I utgangpsunkt in the definition of Roger Griffin: A national through the state, which is necessary because we are facing a crisis, ideas about inner and outer enemies. One can also look at other definitions fascism. Masculinity principle is found in several texts defendants have included in their so-called manifesto. Griffin will point to a new elite (...). There's some of what the defendant himself has written in his fomanifest. He is more specific about their future prospects.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
- The extent to which it is customary to use the Web as a form of communication in these environments? Ask Frode Elgesem. - When they consider themselves to be discriminated against, it is customary to use the Internet or other channels to come out with its message, it applies to both the extreme right and radical Muslims, says Stream.
Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- I must say that his future prospects have strong parallels with totalitarian regimes, as in Iran. [Lawyer Elgesem: With vokterråd, and ..] Yes. [Lawyer Elgesem How do you assess the threat today?] There is a violence potential in the right-wing thinking. It is difficult to assess a threat, and I do not envy those who have the job, but I relate largely to what is being done by the PST and their Danish colleagues. The threat may not come from organized environment, but from individuals who are putting together their own version. [Lawyer Elgesem: It sounds like Breivik] Yes. [Elgesem Lawyer: So this is a trend you see?] The attack on Utøya, not the attack on the Government buildings, is a scale that is unusual. This can not expect to see much of. But serial murders and attacks on Muslim buildings are examples of violence that is more likely. We have seen the Laser Man 2 in Sweden, the murder of Florence in Italy, and other cases. [Lawyer Elgesem: How important are online and discussions in the environment?] Network is an opportunity to spread the message to all the extremists.
Comments from VG's Eve Therese Grøttum:
Power comes with several examples of actions and events that are understood as part of a larger conspiracy, for example, that there has been an initiative called the "Eur-Arab dialogue" and that it is taught in Arabic at European universities. - On the way there is a kernel of reality in it, but it is drawn into a big conspiracy theory that Islam will take over Europe, he explains.
16:21: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- [Lawyer Elgesem: - It is incitement to terrorism is that correct?] It occurs, but is not common. So one must differentiate between romance and violence, glorification of violence, perception of crusaders and former war heroes who have been highlighted as romantic idols and it is relatively much. And the Knights Templar, this blogger Paul Ray who was to start "English defense league" in his time, he has spoken and that it will come back to the Templar order, and he wants to die as a martyr. It is not unheard of and unprecedented either. Then there are the more so and more striking in this respect, with the civil war shows that are reasonably common, if one looks at the extreme right and radical environment that is within democracy. And I think it's interesting to see what is stated in the first expert report that I have read, and the things that are posted online. In the first report states that: [Stream refers here from their report] 'Observanden thought he was at war and ethnic cleansing is taking place in London. " This is then referred to as he is suffering from a paranoid delusional system. In a comment field where both the defendant and blogger "Fjordman" part. [Below is a brief summary of what the current quote what was written in the comments], "My prediction is that the EU is resolution within twenty years and it is a civil war within the ... This is world history's greatest betrayal. " It is very similar performances in the report. [Lawyer Elgesem: - Is it in other writers?] Yes, there are the counter-jihadi community.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
It is now counsel Frode Elgesem asking the Stream. It was the coordinating aid lawyers asked prosecutors to take on its current list of expert witnesses, and Arntzen gave a clear message that they should get plenty of time to ask him questions.
16:23: Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- [Judge Arntzen: - Has the date for what you read aloud?] Not right now. But this was before 22 July. It was in a comment field where Fjordman wrote in response to a comment from Breivik. [Assistance Attorney Elgesem: - Was it also a dialogue between them?] It is said to have been e-mail exchange between them, but I can not explain me. The police have any say. [Assistance Attorney Elgesem: - Can you say something about Eurabia concept?] It is believed that Europe is occupied primarily through cooperation between Arab countries and parties on the left side of European politics. These ideas have largely been linked to documents in the EU context, including the EU's proximity policy. It is politics that goes on among other things, to promote the teaching of Arabic language at the universities. Also literary conference in Venice. Has there been cooperation between European and Arab countries, it quickly emerged as a part of this conspiracy. (...) It is in this Eurabia theory to a powerful partnership with a major Arabization of Europe, although the forum is dominated by conflict. - In a prospective, including Israel, while Norway does not. But it is used as an example of islamifisering. It is typical. One finds a core of facts, and then rub on Mon with hatred, lies and propaganda. If anyone discuss it, then go really hard on Mon - especially to see the lies. Conspiracy must therefore be about to change Europe, and make the indigenous oppressed. And then there are theories that the politicians work together and contribute to this. The following is the theories that are not related to the Nazi mass murder, so it's not as discredited. [Elgesem Lawyer: How many people support this?] It depends on what level of conspiracy theories lies. Eurabia is used broadly. The same with rhetoric. [Lawyer Elgesem: Fjordman (blogger) wrote an article that everyone should arm themselves both mentally and with guns. This blurred line between news and covert perception of terrorism, is that normal?] This I do not perceive as an incitement to violence. But dystopian world images with treacherous authorities romance and violence are not uncommon.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Stream has repeatedly emphasized that the blogger Fjordman, or Peder Jensen Nøstvold, has not called for mass murder even though he has been an inspiration to Breivik. He points out however that he understood the article "A new declaration of independence", which Breivik has put in the manifesto, as dangerous. In their article Fjordman that there must be "necessary steps" (Appropriate Measures) if governments and bodies like the EU does not stop the alleged Islamization of Europe. - In retrospect, one can ask what the necessary steps are. Many criticize Peder Jensen for it, but I do not. If I criticize Peder Jensen for anything, it is that he advocates a fascist ideology and ethnic cleansing, says Stream.
Witness Øivind Strømmen, an expert on right-wing extremist:
- But it is clear that does not mean that, for example, "Fjordman" and leading writers have called for it. They have called for ethnic cleansing and mass murder is not. [Lawyer Elgesem: - He ("Fjordman") has written a text that Breivik has been included in the compendium. He concludes that violence is the only action. Are you surprised that the article comes here in the compendium?] No, I'm not surprised, it was published in 2007, but it does not encourage violence. When I read this article as I thought it is a dangerous article. He asked a number of specific requirements for what should be done. The European Union should be dissolved, claims that multiculturalism should be rejected and that all aid to Palestine shall terminate and Muslim immigration should cease. Should not be met, "we shall take the appropriate steps." It is easy to be wise after the event and it is easy to criticize Peder Jensen and say that it is an incitement of violence, but I will not. It is clear that it is no coincidence that this text and the name of this text shows up in contexts where one can see that it is "Appropriate Measures." - [Lawyer Larsen: - It is the use of falsehood in propgandistisk context. Can you say something about this in Breivik's ideology?] This lies and hatpropagandaen will not opppfattes like that of all who use it. But the allegations are spread even if they do not hold water. One can only look to history for examples. [Lawyer Larsen:-And what's the point?] To incite to hatred and often resistance or to adopt measures that ... yes. [Lawyer Larsen: - Can you briefly comment on a cell line of thought. Do you know anything of that phenomenon?] A cell-thinking has gradually emerged in the extreme-right. Americans have expressed concern about it from the Islamic sources. one can look at Curtis in the 1990s. He started his career as a terrorist in 1993 and wanted to create a violent reaction against what he thought was Jewish control of the United States. He stated that the aim is to use encelleterrorisme because it is difficult to detect. It is also found in the Manifesto to defendants. On his own website, he published a kind of points system for lone wolves, and even used the term "Lone Wolf", which would be given scores of different killers. He also had ideas about the medals that were awarded to effective terrorists. - So that there is nothing unique in the right extreme of thinking. That the single-cell strategy is not uncommon in terrorism. [Cute lawsuit Husby: Part of the reason why we are here is that the text means different things to two people. You said Utøya was unusual. What do you mean?] There are several things, in the historical context of terrorism. One is the scale of the attack. If one assumes that he was alone, so it is a very large angrept in historical context. The second is the type of target. Unarmed youths are not a common target for terrorists. There have been bombs in discotheques and the like, and the attack in Beslan, and school shootings. It is very special and it must be regarded as such. I do not think the danger lies in the type of attack in the future. [Cute lawsuit Husby: Because] It takes a bet that most people will have great difficulty to implement. [Judge Arntzen: Have any of the other experts question? No? When we say thank you, Stream.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Husby wondering possibility that Fjord Mans texts can affect different people differently, and what the current opinion that Utøya is an attack that is special and probably will not happen again. - One is the scale of the attack, if we assume that he was alone that we have the making, it's a very big attack an individual. The second is the type of target, unarmed youths, it is not a common target for terrorists. It is an example of bombs on disco, and the closest thing is maybe the attack in Beslan, or school murders. It is special and I do not think the danger lies in the type of attack. - Why not? Husby asked. - Because it requires an effort that I think most people will be able to implement, said Stream. Breivik was not able to make their comments today, and will probably have to do it tomorrow. He applied handcuffs and led out of their arrestforvarere.
16:37: Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:
- I just want to plan for tomorrow. Lippestad you have an update to come by. [Defense consequences: - The few changes to the witnesses for tomorrow. Frank Aarebrot and Brynjar Lia before lunch and after lunch is Lars Gule]. That means Ostby and Hærland lapses. [Defense Bæra: - We must also set aside time for Breivik we missed today] When the court adjourned.
[Source: VG: AM : PM] [Translation: Breivik Report]