Breivik has written a critique of the first psychiatric report

NRK reports that Anders Behring Breivik is planning to send out a document before the trial commences to journalists and like-minded individuals which will contain a detailed critique of the first psychiatric report written by Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim.

Breivik’s lawyer, Geir Lippestad, told NRK that Breivik believes the two psychiatrists were either pressured to conclude the way they did or completely misunderstood what he said.

Their report received broad criticism from the professional psychiatric community for its lack of consideration of alternative diagnoses, and the absence of a discussion of Breivik’s political ideology which is shared by many people.

Husby and Sørheim concluded that Breivik’s political ideas are the result of delusions and that his concern of being monitored by the Norwegian Police Security Service (the PST) before carrying out the attacks was the result of paranoid schizophrenia.

The Oslo District Court (Tingrett) has taken the unsusual step of ordering a new psychiatric report, and it is expected to be completed and handed over to the court by psychiatrists Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrisen shortly before the trial begins on April 16th.

Google translation [edited for clarity]:

Breivik send out new document
3/28/2012

In the document, which he is now trying to get out to both the media and like-minded individuals before the trial, he criticizes in detail the conclusions of the first court psychiatrists, Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim.

According to Lippestad Breivik has read this report thoroughly, and he believes that 80 percent of the report is based on statements he has never made. He believes that the court psychiatrists have either been forced to conclude as they have done, or that they have completely misunderstood what he said.

In his closely-written attack on Husby and Sørheim Breivik has presented five theories about how they have come to the conclusion, but Lippestad do not want to go into detail on what these specific theories are. …

Original article: Breivik sender ut nytt dokument
_____

Google translation [edited for clarity]:

Breivik in protest letter from his cell: “The worst that could have happened to me”
04/04/2012

- Neat and clear

- The document does not give a complete picture of him as a person. My impression is that Breivik argues based on an aggressive ideological thinking, and not from psychotic motivation, says specialist in psychiatry Arne Thorvik.

Thorvik argues that the structure of the document is neat and clear.

- Psychoses are characterized not only by remarkable content, but by a striking form. Breivik’s letter is structurally built up, individual sentences are easily understandable even if the message is alien to most people, says Thorvik.

He can not see evidence of hallucinations or reality breaks in the clinical sense.

- He has a religious attitude, but not religious-like delusions….

Original article: Breivik i protestbrev fra cellen: «Verste som kunne rammet meg»

_____

Google translation [edited for clarity]:

Read parts of the introduction of the Breivik-letter
04/04/2012

VG reproduce here parts of the introduction of the open letter of the terror accused Behring Anders Breivik (33), so that readers themselves can get an impression of ​​how he builds up his argumentation.

22/7: More than 200 lies are identified in the forensic psychiatric report

By Anders Behring Breivik

The 29th november court psychiatrists Torgeir Husby and Synne Sørheim delivered their report about me where it was claimed that I was and still am paranoid schizophrenic and psychotic.

I have according to them been psychotic since 2006 and perhaps since 2002. The report was quality assured before Christmas by the court medical commission that had no significant remarks.

I obtained access to the report in its entirety around December 12 and immediately began reviewing the 243-page document. I was mildly put appalled at what was presented as my own explanation, namely what was presented as the content of the thirteen conversations I had with the psychiatrists (p. 84 to 203).

As known, these alleged conversations form the main basis for the diagnosis as they form the main premises for the conclusion. The problem is just that 80 percent of the contents of the thirteen conversations are directly fictional.

These representations are not innocent misunderstandings, but rather malicious lies that are designed in a very sophisticated and thoughtful way with the purpose of creating the premises that support the conclusion.

It was not just Husby and Sørheim who learned much through the 13 conversations of ours. I also learned very much about them, for example, about what political ideology they hold and what kind of view of people they have. Husby specified on several occasions that he thought the actions I have done were beastial and I got the impression that he looked at me like an animal that had to be locked up and doped down, at whatever the cost.

Has an event that has traumatized a nation also caused trauma in Husby and Sørheim to such an extent that they must be regarded as impartial? Can two court psychiatrists who are so emotionally attached to 22/7 result in them not being able to be objective?

The very brutal, and for them incomprehensible actions, combined with our incompatible ideological differences of opinion resulted in a conclusion that most likely was created as a result of emotions out of control, where the absence of a pragmatic approach was almost complete.

Both Husby and Sørheim revealed at an early point that they were on the opposite side of the political scale. Both are supporters of the multicultural ideology and are therefore by definition opponents of my monocultural and ethnocentric worldview.

They are both internationalists (anti-nationalists) and therefore naturally distance themselves strongly from my radical monocultural and ethnocentric view. Our different political views are completely incompatible.

Where I believe that multiculturalism is an anti-Norwegian, hate-ideology designed to deconstruct the Norwegian ethnic group, Norwegian culture/traditions and Norwegian Christianity – Husby and Sørheim believes that our ethnic group and our culture is not worth preserving. Where I believe that multiculturalists facilitate the gradual Islamic colonization of our country, they consider Islam as a great enrichment for Norway and Europe.

Sørheim, who is located in South Africa, views Nelson Mandela as a heroic freedom hero, while I have written a long essay about Mandela’s past as a terrorist leader of the armed wing of the then-Marxist terrorist organization, ANC.

This organization has as known been guilty of murder, bombing and maiming of countless of my anti-communistic Boer-brothers up until the 90s until eventually de Clerk gave in and capitulated to the global cultural Marxist lobby. Can it be that our incompatible worldviews, as outlined above, is the reason that Sørheim has contributed to the inclusion of fictitious claims in so many parts of the report or are there other reasons?

The entire letter stretches over 38 pages….

Original article: Les deler av innledningen i Breivik-brev
_____

Related post: Court orders new psychiatric evaluation of Breivik