Breivik testimony April 23, 2012
Oslo District Court 04/23/2012
Google translation [edited for clarity]:
Read Monday’s first part of prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh and Svein Holden questioning by Anders Breivik Behring below:
VG: – Here comes Behring Anders Breivik into the courtroom. He talks as usual with his defenders before he will soon take the witness stand. – By court players as we lack only the judges of the saddle 250 now. – Where are the judges. – The judge has said that the court has been set.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Svein Holden prosecutor informs the court that they are somewhat behind the original schedule and suggest areas of questioning of the mass murderer moved to Wednesday. It is because of issues around mental health report.
prosecutor Svein Holden: – Prosecutors have focused on progress and our assumption is that we are somewhat behind schedule. We think it will be difficult to terminate questioning by the defendant to then, and our proposal is that we move the questioning of the defendant on the issues associated with accountability to Wednesday because we have a window in the morning. Our assessment is that it will fit in well there.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – Holden, before sitting down. When it comes to these witnesses in the morning, you also affirm these as planned?
prosecutor Svein Holden: – Yes, we have also, naturally enough carried out a continuous evaluation of the evidence the task in light of the Brivik have said until now. So far, we can say that we will waive a witness. [Mentions a witness]
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – [While Holden speaks in court now talking with their lawyers Breivik] We can take it away. Is there any objection to the witness waived? [Lippestad: - No, it is not.]
prosecutor Svein Holden: – This implies that the other witnesses in the proof of the thesis, it is necessary to lead.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Witness the waiver is a man who had contact with the mass murderer on the internet. None of the players had no objections.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – When we put it to the ground so far. At the end of the day we received a new application from NRK for filming of the defendant, so I think we take a negotiation about this towards the end of the day.
prosecutor Svein Holden: – Yes, the judge thinks that we should take this in open court? [Arntzen confirms that it can be taken at the end of the day]
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – It was not something more practical before we proceed with the examination of the defendant. When do I add because of Utøya-examination will be completed today and that it is time for the defense and legal aid lawyers to ask their questions.
VG: – Anders Breivik Behring is now taking place in the witness box.
Behring Anders Breivik: – I have a question for the judges. There are two questions that are important to talk about. One is to talk about the 40 policy actions that have been carried out in Norway by militant nationalists after the 2nd World War II .. It is especially important that judges know them.
Behring Anders Breivik: – And it is important that this is discussed. The other thing is the information of my radicalization. In particular confrontation between me and the Muslims in my childhood. And the question is when I have time for this?
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – We can get back to Breivik, I think we continue with the prosecutor’s examination today and Utøya. So we will have time throughout the negotiations and your defenders will ask you a follow-up questions.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – Breivik, when we stopped on Friday had told you about how you remember what happened at Utøya and the last thing you told anything about is that you found a phone that was not yours. But before we go any further there are a few things I want to ask you about. You explained that you go over the tent, also kills some of the end of the tent site. It is found ten people are killed on the Love Trail.
Behring Anders Breivik: – When you kill them, what situation they are in then, they run or are they still on this path then? – Eh, I do not remember. I do not. But I seem to remember that I have read in a report that some of them lay in the fetal position, indicating that they were paralyzed and unable to move. – I’ve never really seen any picture of how they were found. [Bejer Engh: - This is something you have read the documents. The court is concerned with is what you remember today]
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – Do you remember any of these people? [Breivik: No.] Do you remember what kind of weapon you used?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I do not remember, but based on other things, so it is easy to reason with what I have used. – [You do not remember how far away you were?] Basically, if I was within five to ten feet, I always used the Glock., If it was longer than ten meters, I used the rifle.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – When you were using Glock do you remember how close you were then? [Breivik: - I went went to ten meters] – You were right up in the face of the person? [Breivik: - From 10 centimeters to 10 meters.] – What you explained on Friday, it was partly based on the documents? [Breivik confirms it.]
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – On Friday you said … You said you see them when you go Love trail again. Is this something you remember? – [Breivik: - It is not something I remember.] You do not remember if you shot several times the first time you were there? [Breivik: - No]
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – You’ve explained that you go further down the love path, and then we heard about the two who were killed in the woods, so were you using Information House, where the smoke came from, we’re in the Kafe building . When you pick up a phone. [Breivik: - Right.]
prosecutor Svein Holden: – When you then come to the north of the island … If you look at the map … [Breivik: - The screen is at an angle so that I can not see it, you want me to fix it up? He adjusts the screen.] If we take the north side. The Pride Mountain is found [small group]. If you have any recollection of how they were killed?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, I have some memories from there. Thus, when we had an interview at Utøya, I remember that it was a kind of bay. It called Bolshevik. Then I remember that I used the rifle and fired on a group of people. I think they just were injured. – I believe they were injured. I’m not sure. So I went to the beach, I remember [a group], I do not remember more than that.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – [Breivik trying to remember a group of his shot against] – In how far away they shoot then?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I do not know … perhaps within ten feet, maybe Glock, maybe rifle. I remember a group of people.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – As you remember, it happened with [the small group] after you have been on the beach called Bolshevik?
Behring Anders Breivik: – If I remember correctly, they see me coming. So I fired a shot against one of them. When they flee, I vedkomne damage. Then I’ll follow-up shots at [Breivik describes the small group of people]. I do not know if they are damaged or …
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – No one was injured in this area, all of which were made ??in this area die. [Breivik: - Yes, of course.]
Behring Anders Breivik: – Well, it is conceivable that they ran along the Bolsheviks in the eastern direction, so I go up on Pride Mountain and meet them when they come around. Or that I go around and meet it. I do not remember.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – First it was [a group of people] on Stolt Mountain, it is found [a group of people] on the beach in Bolshevik. Were you close to them or far away?
Behring Anders Breivik: – The Bolshevik, I was at a distance, is quite sure. But on the Stoltenberg may I discovers them. I do not remember. But the answer to that can be found in the ballistic investigations.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – What I am concerned about is what you remember. So, you have explained that proceeding from the Bolsheviks and the Pump House. Here it is found 14 dead people. You described on Friday you said that you were police and that there was a boat. Why did you do that?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Ehm … I went well from the east towards the west and it was really just a coincidence that I saw some behind the pump house. I realized that there were many people there. I started by saying, “Have you seen him?” A pointed in one direction. It was then in order to lure them out so that I could execute them. – So they were perhaps five to seven feet away, so when I said that there is a boat that will take you to safety there. You must come forward now. We have not arrested the person, I said. – And then they seemed very skeptical, while there were some who seemed very relieved. The rest seemed still very skeptical. I said: You must come now. [He describes how he shot a group of young people at the Pump House.]
VG: – Breivik describes how he shot people at the pump casing, and is accurate distances. – [He says that he tried to shoot at the head of all to ensure that the dead]
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Bejer Engh: - When you went from there how it looked?] There were many individuals that were collected and concentrated and I remember that when I would go from there I had to go right by the individuals, go among the fatalities. I thought it was terrible.
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Engh: Why was it horrible Breivik] To kill an individual is the most extreme one person can do, and prejudice in many ways against human nature. I have never experienced anything so terrible, and it was probably even more horrible for the ones I hunted.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – That it was more terrible for them than for you? [Breivik: - Of course.] Breivik: But for my part, I have never experienced something so horrible.
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Bejer Engh: - When you went from the pump housing, perceived that all were dead?] That’s what I thought yes.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – So you end up on Sydspissen. The next place the police find people who are killed. There is death in all five people.
Behring Anders Breivik: – I do not remember anything more about the people. I remember the topography, that there were small trees there that it was difficult to hide behind. And there were people who were swimming. It may be that I fired shots at people who swam, I do not remember. It may also be that I fired at some boats that tried to catch up AUF-ers. – I remember it either. But it can happen. [Describes a young person that he remembers well.]
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik says that he saved a young person on the south side of Utøya, and told the court that he said to the person concerned: – This is going to go well. Prosecutors Svein Holden begins to speak and ask Breivik explain how he thought the young person had it then and have it today. – He was in shock. I’ve probably ruined his life, and I’m aware of. I have most likely caused him psychological damage, says Breivik.
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Bejer Engh: - So he is taking the lives of the others on Sydspissen] Yes he did. When I approached the group on Sydspissen. [Breivik tells of meeting with a young person on Utøya] At the time I had little ammunition left. I used the rifle to a large extent on Sydspissen.
VG: – [Breivik describes how he says he understands that he has destroyed the life of a young person from Utøya.]
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Holden: - Do you feel guilty?] I am fully aware of what I have deer and the suffering I have caused to others. But as I said earlier, it was a little savagery in order to prevent a much greater barbarism. Do you feel guilty to this person? [Breivik: - I choose not to take it over me.] – If I were to take the suffering I have caused over me. But I choose not to do.
prosecutor Svein Holden: – How can you make that choice? [Breivik: - I have trained for years, and therefore I can make that choice.]
prosecutor Svein Holden: – Does that mean you do not take into what you have done to this young person?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I know what I have done and what I have caused. A child or youth who lose their parents – it’s just a case where a loss is so great. It is impossible for a man to put up with. I have been in that situation myself, and that is the saddest I have ever experienced. So I can not imagine how these people have it. – [Bejer Engh: - When you say you've experienced it before you think of the funeral then?] Another aspect worthy of note. People say they have lost their boyfriends, friends and family. But on 22 July also lost my family and my friends. The difference was that for me it was a choice and offered it. They had no choice. I lost everything so therefore I can, to some extent understand how others feel.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – Do you want us to have any sympathy with you? [Breivik: - Absolutely not. It is informational only.] – Before we leave Sydspissen. [Group] who were killed here. Do you remember if they were close together, or were they far apart? Do you have any pictures of it?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I think they stood together in a cluster. And any predictions, I think that I fired a few shots at the water … but I do not know.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – Now we have been through those killed on Utøya and what you remember in connection with it. There are a number of people you’ve met but who survived and who are named in the indictment against you. They will come here and explain how they experienced it. We will go through quickly what you felt then.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – The first place I will take you when is the first time in the Café building, after you’ve killed [describes a small group of persons] near the Information House. Do you remember if you shot someone who you perceive is not killed?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I have no memories of it, but it is likely it. [Engh: - You have no memories?] No, I did not have it the next day either.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – On the campsite that you go out and goes after you had been in the cafe building. You described that you shot beyond the tent. Do you remember when you shot someone who did not die?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It is likely that. When I stood on end to the Café building, it was the large group that I fired off to the woods because I’m pretty sure it’s a part that was injured.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – You do not have any detailed memories about it.? [Breivik: - I met several who were wounded. (...) There was almost no one was down. Then I thought that there are many nearby who are wounded and fleeing.]
Behring Anders Breivik: – And I do know that one of the trail was in love.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – [Describes a murder at campsite] So it has been revealed that you came to love the path, and this group of people [ask if he remembers survivors Kjærlighetsstien]. – [Breivik: - No I have not.] So you should have shot down this slope. Can you describe it? – Here was injured nine people in addition to those killed there. Can you see who gets killed and who is injured?
Behring Anders Breivik: – What I remember that I said last time was that when I stood up there on the slope, I saw that there were many who tried to hide. [Describes how he shot at people to get them out from their hiding places.]
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – But a more concrete memories of who they were and how they looked, have not you?
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: prosecutor Svein Holden sits leaning over the table and look at Breivik as he explains himself. Sometimes he asks supplementary questions to him.
Behring Anders Breivik: – No I have not. [Bejer Engh: - So you know someone fell?] It was one that fell out after I shot him.
VG: – Breivik describes one of the killings on the cliffs.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik explains that he saw many ungdmmer who tried to hide on ledges of a cliff. He explains that he saw arms and legs sticking out, and that he tried to shoot the body parts he saw that they would fall down. He believes he met more and saw that several fell down. Then he shot them again. Breivik explains the still unspoiled and quiet.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik explains that he has trained for years not to take on some of what he has done, including by means of meditation. He meditates still in the prison yard at Ila and believes he understands how the victims feel. – I also lost my family and my friends after 22 July, says mass murderer. – Do you want us to have sympathy with you? asks the prosecutor Engh. – Absolutely not. It is for information only, answer Breivik.
Behring Anders Breivik: – There, I remember very well, which I did not tell the last time. [Describes in detail the attack on one of the survivors.]
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – On the way south stopped on the western tip. You described on Friday that you fired at a boat.
Behring Anders Breivik: – No, it was by the slope of Love trail, I fired at the boat.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – So your memories that you shoot from a boat is the slope of Love trail?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Round the Love Trail.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – On the western tip is made ??[more people]. Do you have any recollection of this?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I think I mixer pump house and the western tip, I strongly suspect it. [Breivik mixes now about the people he has talked about and which has met the]
VG: – [Breivik think he mixes different times of the Utøya.] [When the prosecutor tells him how many were killed at a specific location on the island, says Breivik surprised: so many?]
Behring Anders Breivik: – Was it while they swim, or did they land? [Engh: - They were in the water.] Ok. All right, yes. There were many who fled into the water, and when I snapped at them when they were in the water, I think.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – Do you have any direct memories of these you should be shot for, but not killed?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I think I remember I shot the water against someone who swam and tried to duck under. I have some memories of that as well. – When they tried to swim towards the pier on the other hand, I snapped a few shots while they were in the water and tried to flee away. I used the rifle when I did it.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – Before we leave this, it’s something you’ve forgotten something you want to add? I have some other issues I will discuss with you, but something about the actual killing?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It is a question that is raised by one of those who survived. I do not know if I should take it now or later …. There is one called Pracon. (Breivik trying to explain why he did not kill Pracon.) It is the other place I discovers him. It may close the Pump House or Love trail. I have only fragments of a memory. I ask a lot of people, “Have you seen him?”. And it is especially a human. – And then there is a person who looks pretty suspect out and I have no direct memory of it but what I think happened is that when I saw Pracon, it becomes difficult to explain it. [Breivik take time to think about how to express himself] Some people have a look that is reminiscent of left-wing people. – [NN] Marxist look out. Judging from the prejudices and assoiasjonene you can get, there are some that look a little more left-wing than the other. For example, a person with dreads will automatically fall into that category. – But he looks very right wing out. And when I saw him, so I make for myself in many ways. I know that I look quite right wing out. And some of the witnesses have testified that the more I looked like a right-wing person, that my facial features. – It happened instinctively that is.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – Do you have any memories of it this? Pracon come and explain himself, he was at Sydspissen both times he met you. [Breivik seems surprised and asks: - Both times?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik talking about a named AUF has survived, and who has explained that Breivik saved him. He says he has thought quite a bit in the AUF does have explained in the media and would like to offer his version of the story. Breivik explains that he believes some people look very left-leaning, but not this AUF shoulder. – He looked more right-wing out. When I saw him then I really myself. I think that was what was the reason why I have not fired the shots, says Breivik. He still has no memory of that he actually met AUF shoulder, and is surprised when the prosecutor said that they met twice.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – But you have no memories of the days that you have saved him? [Breivik, I knew I met a group (...) and when I said something like, "Have you seen him?" I thought it was in that setting ...]
Behring Anders Breivik: – But then I have two other comment as well. But it is the Government buildings, I do not know if you want me to take it now or whether we should take it later? It’s something I’ve forgotten. – There are some who have raised a very relevant question. There were some who were injured. [In Government Quarter] A person who died was not among the employees of the ministries, the NN. – It was a casual passer [Breivik mentions Kai Hauge] by its ministries. In addition, there was another person. In addition, there was a direct damage unrelated to the Ministry. They are not defined as legitimate targets. To all these I want to give a big apology and regret for what happened. The goal is not to harm innocent civilians who these were. I therefore wish to inform the deepest regret to those who do not support multiculturalism.
prosecutor Svein Holden: – Just for the record, you have some similar apology to the other relatives?
Behring Anders Breivik: – No, I do not.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik asks to say something about the incident in the government quarter, and are allowed by Judge Wenche Arntzen. He says that he has found out who was killed by the bomb in the government building, and that several were random passersby. – The goal is not to target innocent civilians as these were, so I want at the deepest level a great regret to the relatives of those without an affiliation to political parties that support multiculturalism, says Breivik.
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Holden: - What is the reason for that?] Thus, it is awful that you are forced to do such a barbaric act to achieve the lenses. But that’s because you do not get to participate in democracy. But it was necessary. I know that 44 of the 65 AUFerne had management positions.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Prosecutors Holden begins to speak and ask Breivik whether he will apologize to the families of the victims of the massacre Utøya. – No, I do not answer the mass murderer.
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Holden: - What about those who had leadership positions in the AUF.] Goal that I have described. There is one building where there is only parliamentary representatives. – Utøya was the best political target in Norway at that time. There was no purpose in Norway who was better, and the same with the government quarter. Had it been a goal that was better, I’d hit that goal.
prosecutor Svein Holden: – But Breivik, now you said that there was someone in the government quarter, which fell outside the målbeskrivelsen yours. And then you told us that it was part of Utøya who had leadership positions in the AUF, and that they were legitimate targets. But what they do not have leadership positions there, then?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik stresses again that he did not want to harm those who were under 18, but that it was necessary. He will not apologize to the other relatives in the case.
Behring Anders Breivik: – There is a person. Firstly, I have little information about individuals from Utøya. I know it’s a person from Norwegian People’s Aid, which I killed. [Describes that this person worked for an organization that he describes as actively working for the political standpoint, he does not support.] – When it comes to these. There were two people who was fourteen years of age who were in the AUF and none of them had leadership positions. There is no desire to harm someone who is under eighteen. In practice it proved difficult.
prosecutor Svein Holden: – Okay. So I interpret you to mean that the NN, for example, who worked for Norwegian People’s Aid … There is no excuse for her family?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I do not know the background of this individual. I do not know why this person was there. I do not have enough information. – [Bejer Engh: - When we go further Breivik. You were arrested. When you were there you had any thoughts about what would happen to you then?] During the incident, there is a chance to get a bullet in the forehead. When I survived was that exceptional circumstances and Delta group was so mentally damaged by what I had done there that maybe they thought I deserved a bullet in the head. Since they did not choose to do so, it could be a problem in the main house.
Behring Anders Breivik: – But I thought not so much. 22. July was a so-called suicide attacks. What happened to me does not really matter.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – Yes, I have heard, I have been with me, please. What you are saying is that when you get the information the House, you are taken to an interrogation, up to the second floor. What do you think the police will do to you?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I have just explained to me about it already. Under the very special circumstances, I knew there was a high probability that even the most skilled people from the police would be emotionally unstable.
Behring Anders Breivik: – And when individuals are emotionally unstable, they often act irrationally. They are governed by their emotions. Secondly, I attacked Norway’s most powerful party directly. The Prime Minister would be directly involved and there was a high probability that they would be emotionally unstable. Then the probability of presence of trusted employees had asked the police that I could not survive. – Set during the exceptional circumstances.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – But would not survive, you say, thought that the police would execute you?
Behring Anders Breivik: – In the extreme, if I was handled by someone who had received the orders of an emotionally unstable head of state, or that they had been hit themselves.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – Were you aware that we do not have the death penalty in Norway?
Behring Anders Breivik: – But I’m not talking about this at all I’m talking about emotional instability. The sight that awaited many of Utøya … people might be emotionally unstable it.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – Did you have any thoughts about what would happen to your family?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I knew that Norway would end in a kind of martial law. A situation we have not been in since World War II. I knew the likelihood was there for my family and friends that they might be exposed to a lynsjemobb who wanted to frame me. – And that’s the main reason I have spoken derogatory and hurtful to my friends in the compendium. Because ultimately it would be a preventive factor and saving lives. – So I knew the likelihood was there. [Engh: the likelihood of what?] – In order that people would engage in own hands. [Engh: - In your family?] Yes.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – In this interview on ‘House, where you asked if they would execute your family.
Behring Anders Breivik: – It was not what I asked. What I am referring to are others who are emotionally unstable and could make a lynsjegruppe. I have never accused the police to want to kill my family.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – At this first hearing in the Information House, “He also believes that his family is going to be executed.”
Behring Anders Breivik: – That is exactly what I said earlier. “He believes.” I am not accusing the police for it. It’s like watching 25 July, there were lots of people who were in lynsjestemning. If I had walked down the street then I would have been lynched. It’s a natural reaction to such a trauma, it is lynsjestemning.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – So when you say that there was a feeling that your family could be killed, charged you that you could be lynched?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Now combine the two elements that are independent of each other. When I went to the second floor I made a tactical initiative and showed the police that I have resolve. – I want to convey the fact that I have dødsforrakt, to the police. So I come with the utterance. The second remark about my family, should not be viewed in that context at all. – So I have a few issues related to Utøya and what happened there. Firstly, the planning process. Did you have any thoughts that you would get off the island alive, that is, without being arrest?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Several relatives laugh when Breivik uses the term “expropriation” to get a flight from an airport at Fornebu. – What does it mean? Ask Engh – So, what to say … You would have to call it stealing, answer Breivik. More laughs in the audience stated.
Behring Anders Breivik: – At one point I considered it a possibility, yes. I have knowledge of aircraft position at Fornebu, and I have studied how to fly light aircraft through a number of guides. The idea was at a certain time to – to use a pompous utrrykk – expropriate … [-Engh: What does it mean?] You would call it stealing. – I believe that all militant nationalists have the right to expropriate the assets in the fight for our cause. Therefore, I call it not a theft. There are several revolutionary groups who use this term.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – So you had planned to expropriate a plane? [Breivik: At one point I thought that if I managed to escape to another country, eg. Russia, would have increased media effect.]
Behring Anders Breivik: – But I knew that there was a single country that would not deport me or some other militant nationalists, so I saw the plan as pointless. I knew that there were two possible outcomes of 22 July, it was that I was killed or that I was arrested.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – But that plane, would you take with you in advance, or what would happen?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It was placed there in advance of nærhten Utøya. [Bejer Engh: - Have you ever been inside a plane?] – I had knowledge from Youtube videos and a few others. [Engh: - Did you think then that you would fly on the basis of what?] – Basically, it’s not that hard to take off with a plane, the difficult thing is to land a plane, I would probably predict may have trouble landing a plane and also the moor. But there is much you can learn via the Internet.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – A small follow-up to it, would you describe yourself as technically gifted?
Anders Breivik Behring: – I would describe myself as a person who is good at putting myself in everything I have an interest in putting me in. [Holden: - On 22 July you said you had to call the Viking Rescue, what was the reason why you should do it?] – No, it was that I should put the car in reverse. [Holden: Which car do?] [Breivik: The car bomb.] After I had rented it, because I had problems with it. It was pretty easy, but I could not.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Now, I said 22 July, I meant of course the week before. He had trouble putting the car in reverse, you say. [Breivik: - Yes.] But to fly a small plane?
Anders Breivik Behring: – Well, the person I spoke with who were expert in Craftere, but he could not explain it. When an expert can not, it is no wonder that I do not. There was actually nothing about this in the manual. – It is a very special car model that has a special way to put the car in reverse. [Holden: - You can not get this car into reverse you say that you should learn to fly Cessna aircraft via Youtube videos?] – It has not completely relevant. One can certainly make mistakes, even if one is versed in a site. Individuals who would help me could not even.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Do you have to be an expert to be able to put a crafter in reverse?
Anders Breivik Behring: – No, that is, this car has a very special way to put into reverse, and that many, nor the experts always fail.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – When I have a question related to il planning. On Thursday or Friday you said what you should do if you met Gro Harlem Brundtland. Is there anything more beyond what you explained on Thursday? Should you talk to her, say something?
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik had planned to execute Gro and Eskild Pedersen Utøya, while this was completed, he had pre-memorized a speech that he should read up. Breivik believe he had a role as a judge and should list the crimes of which he believes the two victims behind.
VG: – Describes how to kill Gro Harlem Brundtland. Just as al-Qaeda kill their victims.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: When the prosecutor goes on to ask Breivik about the plans he had to execute Gro Harlem Brundtland on Utøya, it becomes quiet in the saddle again. More looks at the screens showing Breivik while talking.
Anders Breivik Behring: – That I am a representative of the Norwegian anti-Islamic and anti-communist resistance movement, abbreviated Knights Templar, and I would list the crimes. Something like that.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – In questioning by the police remembered it by heart, and wrote it in a note.
Anders Breivik Behring – I can certainly think of it now. I am good at taking it on the fly. [Bejer Engh says Breivik can try to remember what he said] I, Behring Anders Breivik, representative of the Norwegian anti-communist and anti-Islamic groups in Norway.
Anders Breivik Behring: – The Knight Templar Knight Chief Justice of the Knights Templar Norway and Europe, want to, so I list up the crimes, for your central role in the deconstruction of the Norwegian ethnic group and Norwegian culture and for your role in using including asylinsitiuttet as a tool for mass immigration. – Eh … Hereby sentence you to death by beheading for your central role in this. It was something that kind of thing.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – What is the reason why you remember it by heart?
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Judge Arne Lyng interrupt the prosecutor and ask a journalist in the audience if the camera is turned to that page it says and flashes on the floor. The journalist denies this.
Anders Breivik Behring: – It’s one of the central message of the compendium. It is responsible to make those responsible. All that is your fault that my sisters are raped and abused. All they should be held accountable. In the setting that is unique and not normally do this, but as a tool of psychological warfare, it is a very potent weapon.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – When we go over to the actions of the island. We have some pictures here. Here, the police dressed up like a doll it is assumed that you looked. Is that how you remember it?
Anders Breivik Behring: – Yes, it must be that, except that police identification tag is missing. And the helmet.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik insists that he will try to keep the speech he had planned to stay until he would behead Gro Harlem Brundtland on Utøya. – I can try, I’m pretty good at taking things on the fly, he says, he begins by introducing himself as a knight, Chief Justice of the anticommunist opposition movement, before he is insecure and has to think about. He then talks about what he believes was the Brundtland’s role by using the asylum system as a tool for mass Muslim immigration. – I hereby sentence you to death by beheading for your role in this, says Breivik that he had planned to say.
Anders Breivik Behring: – So this is contrary to the West – not IDF-West I spent in front of government building. But it is contrary to the West I used to Utøya.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – So that’s how you went dressed Utøya? [Breivik: - Yes that's right.] – This is a picture of the shoes you had on you. What is the back of the heels where?
Anders Breivik Behring: – There are tracks that need to use in a setting where you are attacked from behind, so you can use it as a weapon against people who attack you from behind. I knew there was a risk that a group of people would attack me, even outside the Government buildings.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – I’ll show one thing we found you [shows picture of a KT-Coin], What is this?
Anders Breivik Behring: – There is a Knights Templar coin. It is a good luck coin. It is purchased from a company through the internet. [The prosecutor shows a picture of a coin on the screen] – A good luck coin in the Knights Templar. It has some text, like the original Knights Templarne used, and there is a collective coin is made of Knights Templar enthusiasts. – [Engh: - Who wrote it?] That’s a company in the United States, certainly, who have made a collective coin.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – The rest of the Knights Templar network, have the same coin?
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Prosecutor taking up an image on the screen that shows a doll that is dressed with the equipment Breivik wore during the terrorist attacks – including a vest with magazines, gun holster, a good luck coin he has purchased over the Internet and track the boots that would used when he was attacked from behind. – Worked lucky coin? asked the prosecutor. – Yes, it did, answer Breivik.
Anders Breivik Behring: – This is the commercial goods that have nothing in our network to do. The effects we have used in commercial purposes.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – You use this coin as what? Why had it with you?
Anders Breivik Behring: – It is a good luck coin and it will bring good luck. [Engh: - Did it?] Yes, it did. – [Engh: - This is when?] It is the back of the same coin. The original Latin name for KT in Norwegian means “the poor knights fighting for Christ and Solomon’s Temple.” This means that there are poor knights who have given up everything to fight ascetic in his fight. – It represents us very well. I have lived ascetic in recent years.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – You tell us. Who is this us? [Breivik: - This is the original Knights Templar. There is a clear connection between the principles they used 900 years ago and the principles I have lived under for example.]
Anders Breivik Behring: – [A necklace with the coat of arms shown off. [Engh: - What is this?] It is a necklace that also is to honor the first Knights Templar. It is silver and it is specially ordered goods from a Polish company, I think.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – The other KT network, they have something similar? [Breivik: - This is something I have ordered.] So you do not know if they have something similar?
Anders Breivik Behring: – It represents everything that I – and KT Network stands for. [Bejer Engh: - Here are some other things. How did you made these police emblems?] – The I made in Photoshop. And the same with the PST. I had a starting point for that. I managed to locate a relatively good graphics in Google’s graphics library so I made some changes. PST logo I had to build from scratch. The latter is KTS logo and it represents essentially a (…) crosses pierce a skull on the basis of the three hatideologiene in the world.
Anders Breivik Behring: – One is Islam, the other is communism, including multiculturalism, and the third is national socialism. Islam is mentioned first because Islam is responsible for 300 million people are killed, communism and multiculturalism are listed as number two, because it is responsible for 100 million people are killed, and national socialism is mentioned last because it is responsible for 25 million people are killed. – I consider all of the ideologies that hatideologier that must be combated. In our case, the logo of St. George’s cross. – [Bejer Engh: - Is it the logo of the KT this?] In the variant in which it is my proposal for a logo anyway. [Bejer Engh: - The skull and cross your proposal to the logo, have you had any ...?] – I have received a directive that there should be a St. George cross. A skull and St. George’s cross.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – Who gave you these directives? [Breivik: - I do not wish to say.] Was it at this meeting in London? [Breivik: It was in connection with the meeting anyway.] – And within the framework would you design … [Breivik: - There are people who were at that meeting in any case.]
Anders Breivik Behring: – [Bejer Engh: - What do you think about your work?] It represents what we stand for. We are fighting for our cause of death. It separates us from other militant nationalists.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik explains that he has the team logo of a skull and a St.Georgskors. He claims he received directives that these two elements should be part of a new logo or coat of arms when he was on a so-called inaugural meeting of Knights Templar in London, but that he has developed self-designed and have been labeled made in India.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – Where did you get it? [Breivik: - The starting point I made in Photoshop. I ordered it in a factory that made emblems from India actually. I could have made it in Europe, but it would cost five times as much. ]
Anders Breivik Behring: – [Bejer Engh: - Why did you have it with you on Utøya?] Because it represents the Knights Templar Network. The reason I did not have the promotion was that I would have the deceptive effect of police uniform. In a martyr phase and one is identified it would be appropriate to take on this. Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: How are the other Knights Templar members take advantage of this? Anders Breivik Behring: The starting point is what they represent. It is conveyed in the compendium. If others feel that it is good enough, they can choose to use it too.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – If you had been killed on Utøya, so the police had found it in your jacket, what would they think then? [Breivik: - It is not so relevant. They had found out later what it was. Thus, it was the coat of arms I was going to use.]
Anders Breivik Behring: – [Engh: - Ordered more than one?] I ordered two. A I would have with the so-called suicide attack, and the other I would wear the uniform.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – assessed at any time to order more of the other members? [Breivik: - I do not wish to comment.]
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: The Court takes break for 20 minutes. Breivik sitting in the chair while a custody officer put handcuffs on him. On the way out talks with defender mass murderer Geir Lippestad that he shows a document.
VG: – Prosecutors want to pause. Holden says they have some more questions and that they aim to be finished with this part for lunch. The judge said that when taking a twenty minute break….
Original article: Dag 6, ord for ord: Breivik beklaget overfor pårørende til ett offer
Google translation [edited for clarity]:
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: When is mass murderer back in the courtroom. He is always followed closely by arrestforvarerne.
VG: – Here comes Breivik defenders Lippestad and Hein Bæra into the courtroom. – There will Breivik again.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – As negotiations continue. Be so good prosecutor.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – When I have two small issues until I want to ask you.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: There is a deep sigh through the hall when Breivik says about their plans for beheading on Utøya on Wednesday and Thursday.
Anders Breivik Behring: – Before we go there, I think I forgot to say something in place. [Breivik said that the plan was to behead Marte Michelet he was Utøya Wednesday, Thursday or Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland on Friday. He had not decided what to do with Eskil Pedersen.]
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – But if you had any thoughts about what you should do with him if you met him?
Anders Breivik Behring: – The likelihood, if I had time. [Breivik said that he would have done the same with Eskil Pedersen as the Brundtland] But I do not think I had time for it. [Bejer Engh: - On Thursday, Breivik. Then you have come with some parallels to the war. You have talked about dehumanization. Are there any parallels to what happened at Utøya and what you define as war?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Prosecutors ask Breivik’s use of war terminology when he explains himself. Breivik denies that he believes that Europe is in a conventional war now, but shows that he believes so-called no go zones in different countries, war-like conditions. – This was an assassination, it’s a big difference between an assassination and war, says Breivik.
Anders Breivik Behring: – No, well, it was an assassination. And that’s a big difference between an assassination and war. I have not been in a war. It was a political assassination, neither more nor less. Some think that I imagine that we are in a war now. Of course I know that we are not in a conventional war. But then one can look at Luton and other no-go zones. In essence, it goes on to prevent a future civil war.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – And that’s what you were trying to prevent, a civil war?
Anders Breivik Behring: – Well, not only I but also other militant nationalists will try to prevent a war in which many will die in the future. We believe that this, along with many other political analysts.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – In the first interrogation from your Utøya you say: [He confirmed that he has weighed the pros and cons to execute people.] Persons charged believes he participates in a civil war. “Do you have any comments to it? Breivik: The compendium describes a phase one, two and three of a civil war., Phase one is an attack once or twice a year. Of course I realize that we are not in a conventional civil war. We harlike much authority as Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra ghadde legitiimtet when they had tried to take over power in Cuba from a sovereign state and a board.
Anders Breivik Behring: – There is no difference, but it is an expression that states that “a failed revolutionary is a criminal and a successful revolutionary is a statesman.” – [Bejer Engh: - What are you?] At this early stage I am just a foot soldier.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – You have repeatedly told a bit about, you are passionate about history, I have though. You have talked about knights and some historical figures who have been fighting. How do you think they would look at the situation in Utøya when you walk around there. If you can fantasize a little about that?
Anders Breivik Behring: – They were to deconstruct our ethnic group and our culture. They had done what they could to stop the trend they see now, the historical heroes I have mentioned (…) impaled thousands of people because he considered it as a psychological weapon to stop the Islamic
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – But how do you think they would look at a situation where you attack defenseless children?
Anders Breivik Behring: – Well, the legal definitions of child, I was pretty sure that the individuals under 14 years. It should also be even 14 years. So were two of the 77 persons children. – Then there was the 40 percent who were under eighteen. Two individuals who were fourteen years. [Bejer Engh: - Breivik we have the numbers. You know how many people under eighteen years you have killed?] – 33 [Engh: Is not the child?] No, in the legal definition are those under 14 children. – No, that is, they are not children when you are over 14 years, when one is young. Then you are an adult if you are over 18 But as I said earlier, it was not my goal to kill anyone under 18, but it was impossible to avoid it.
Anders Breivik Behring: – But it was basically my that 25 percent would be under the age of 18. As it turned out that it was 40 percent.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – Now we know the result. We know how many under eighteen you killed. What do you think about it and what do you have other warlords had thought about it now?
Anders Breivik Behring: – As the going now, one is deprived of the opportunity to collaborate. We must act upon the information we have. Utøya was the best political target in Norway 22 July. The question is if I had done it again, with the knowledge that 33 people, 40% were under 18, and the answer is yes. I had done it again. – But how do you see that they were defenseless? How do you think you would set it?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh is openly irritated Breivik when he does not answer her questions, and when he talks away. She has to reprimand him several times, and asks him to be quiet when she speaks.
Anders Breivik Behring: – All absolutely all victims of political assassinations are defenseless. The definition is that it is based on the element of surprise. I also know that there are 15,000 police officers in Norway and 40 to 50,000 military people who would be against me and which I, at worst, would have had to fight that day. – The setting was I to 70,000 armed that day. And the only advantage one has in asymmetric warfare is the element of surprise. I had thirty minutes to me, after thirty minutes had passed I would have been killed, I was aware of.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – You did not answer my question, Breivik. How do you think you have looked up to throughout history that they can not attack had the opportunity to defend himself?
Anders Breivik Behring – I think that they had seen it as a legitimate target. I think they had been willing to do anything to prevent the crimes that are now carried out by the Labour Party.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Prosecutors ask Engh mass murderer not to interrupt her and pushes him further to the question that he has killed a number of defenseless children. She still seems irritated voice. – All victims of political assassinations are defenseless. I acted on the basis of the element of surprise, says Breivik.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – I think it was on Friday, you describe some techniques which soldiers wear when they go to war, how including soldiers in Afghanistan dehumanizing the enemy and envisions the enemy when they go into battle. Did you do something on Utøya.
Anders Breivik Behring: – That’s what I had trained on. [Bejer Engh: - So you see people on Utøya] How do I meditate, it is a selvindoktrinering, when I see these men as the ones vicious monsters. Who wants to destroy our culture and our country. – So I’ve been in a way prepared me for it through selvindoktrinering.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – So you see the youth of Utøya as monsters when you were there?
Anders Breivik Behring: – When you fall into the “flight or fight” mode one thinks instinctively, it is much easier to shop then. It is easier to understand when you have read a bit about it.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik explains that he sees the champions of multiculturalism as monsters, but denies that he saw the youths on Utøya as monsters when he killed them. – Did you know there were people you killed? asks the prosecutor – Yes, I knew it. That was why it was cruel, answer Breivik.
Anders Breivik Behring: – Yes I thought about it, that’s why it was horrible.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – You said on Friday that the body fought against the first shots. How did you proceed? How did you manage to overcome the barrier body apparently ga?
Anders Breivik Behring: – It was only as far as I did. It is like being faced with a situation that you definitely do not want to do. It’s like å .. What can one say, to get a plate of feces that you should eat. The whole body struggles to do so. – It can be compared with it. You do not want to do it. Everything in there, what to say, subconsciously work against you to do so. It is quite strange. It is extremely difficult.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: While Breivik explains himself, it is quiet in the hall 250 Many of the affected facial expressions Breivik follows closely on the many screens in the auditorium. Some whisper a little about what is being said.
Anders Breivik Behring: – [Bejer Engh: - What did you do to manage it? Was there anything in particular you were thinking?] What I have talked about is that I have used some information to “hype” itself slightly. When you use the memories that evoke associations with injustice. – … To help me. [Engh: Did you know?] Yes, I did enough. [Engh: What were you thinking then?] – What I thought was the example of Lebanon. My knowledge that in 1911 it was 80% Christians in Lebanon, and now there is a small minority again.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik explains with a calm voice that he had trouble pulling off the first shots. He says that he used memories of including Christians in Lebanon which has become a minioritet and that the same would happen with Norway if he fights against. – The first shots may be likened to get served a plate of feces that you are forced to eat. It struggled in the body, explains the mass murderer.
Anders Breivik Behring: – [Bejer Engh: - But were you thinking something in Norway?] I knew that if people do not fight against the development, we would like the people of Lebanon, being a minority in the future. – I thought then that if people like me are fighting against our people will die and the nation to die.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – What would happen if you did not shoot anyone on Utøya? [Breivik: I had been arrested?] What would happen to Norway and Oslo, then?
Anders Breivik Behring: – No, what would have happened, well … It was a political assassination. And I knew that 22 July was a contribution in the fight, nothing more, nothing less.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – In an interview in connection with the recovery of Utøya, you said: “He thought the future of Norway was up to him. He did this in order to psyche himself up. »
Anders Breivik Behring: – I think many people think. It can vote. It is common for survivors and one swimmer in the middle of the ocean. One can imagine, I will live to get home to his son and daughter. If you know how the brain works, one must have something similar. For my part, do I love my culture and my country ahead of myself. – I put it higher than the love of myself. So I thought of course what I’m concerned, so it’s true enough.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – So, lately, Breivik. It’s one thing I wonder. What is the reason why you call the police while on Utøya?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Prosecutors ask Breivik for his explanation in connection with the reconstruction of Utøya. He told him to police that he killed while he had focused on that country’s fate was in his hands. – I can vote. One can compare the parents who will survive to come home to their children. For me, the love of my people that is most important, he said.
Anders Breivik Behring: – [pause] It’s a good question. I had not planned it, I was going to finish until I was killed. I thought I had gotten through the point and complete the mission. That’s why I called. What I calculated that I was with at the time had alarmed about 400 individuals on the water. – I thought then that .. At one point, I think around 150 Then I thought that mission was completed. I assumed that there were many who had been killed.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – To call at six o’clock, and we know that you are going through a little before half past six. When you call at six o’clock, you’ve killed about 40 pieces of shot. What I wonder, Breivik, as we have heard these conversations with the police, why do you continue to kill after you have called in to the police and believe that the mission is complete?
Anders Breivik Behring: – Talks end with that I ask the person, I mean to remember, call me up again when she obtained the right person. So I start to think that what was the basis that I came here, and it was not to stop. So there were doubts that arose. I never thought I would survive, so I ended up in a situation where … – [Bejer Engh: - To call and say that the mission is done ...?] Why I continued, was that it was therefore doubts came back again … that it was this that was the plan. [Bejer Engh: - Doubts about what? ] – [Bejer Engh: - What went on then?] There were doubts that got me to call. The doubts persisted. I thought about it. And then I thought why not call up is that they will not let me surrender. They will kill me anyway. The starting point that I was there when I went on. – If they call again, I will take the assessment when they call again. Until then I’ll let fate decide. I thought so then.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: When the prosecutor asked Breivik about what he puts in to complete the action, he smiles. – Why I should carry out July 22? We have already talked about, he says and smiles at Bejer Engh.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – I understand you so that you call in the first place because you’ve got enough attention? [Breivik: - No, it was not what I ..] But the mission was completed? – That you had killed enough people, I have noticed. Why would you do this? Breivik: – Why I would conduct 22 July? We have talked about a few times now.
Anders Breivik Behring: – It is not just why. This is to make those responsible accountable [Bejer Engh: - When you call in, and you have killed tilstrekkellig with people, Breivik interrupts]
Anders Breivik Behring: – It was the different goals. [Engh: Does that mean you actually had intended to kill as many as possible out there?] Initially the plan was to kill everyone there, scaring everyone in the water.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – So what does it mean that you call the police and says that the mission is completed?
Anders Breivik Behring: – The plan was always to use the shooting as a detonator and water as weapons of mass destruction.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – You have several days now told the reason why you kill 22 July. The primary goal is for you to distribute your compendium. The actions of Utøya felt for you as cruel. So call the police after you have killed 40 people at Utøya, why continue as if it’s so cruel? Are we to believe you then?
Anders Breivik Behring – I do not remember very well what I thought, but I ended up having to call. I can not comment on it further than I have already done.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – Are you considering any other action, to sit down and wait until the police arrived?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Prosecutors told Breivik that it is difficult to understand how he can say it was cruel to kill the Utøya, while he continued to kill after he spoke with police. He can not give any good answers. – As we talked about in town, so I ended up calling. I can not give a better comment than that, he says.
Anders Breivik Behring: – I considered it, yes …. when I called, I thought “what should I do now?”, “how should I respond as to whether they say that they had been there about a half hour?”. The plan was never to surrender, the plan was to die outside the Government buildings. – I was 99 percent sure I was going to die outside the government building. So I was probably not prepared enough.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – In court on Friday said that the goal was to kill everyone on the island, killing 600 people. Are you standing by that? [Breivik: Yes, I stand by it.]
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – I’ll just show you one last thing, Breivik. In your manifesto: [Showing a portion of the screen. Engh translation into Norwegian.] “If you are being followed, go to the primary target and say to the police and comes with requirements. All this while executing the A-and B-traitors with silencer … “What is this?
Anders Breivik Behring: – It is a tactic for a similar scenario. At that point I thought, “Why, I found this cell phone?” And I began to doubt. For I was probably not well enough prepared Utøya section. – [Bejer Engh: - Did you use this tactic here on Utøya] In another setting I had used it. One can say there are very many others in Norway who deserves to be executed more than they Utøya. For example, journalists. If I had been on the investigative conference, I enjoyed it and not let any escape. – If I compare AUFere, however. It was the best political goal that day. But I had probably used the strategy at other times.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Thank you. Just a follow up to what you said now. You think you might enjoy killing journalists?
Anders Breivik Behring – I do not know, I’ve never been in that situation. I think probably I’d think it was just terrible. But there are people in this country who deserve a lot more to be killed for their attitudes – more than these AUFerne. – I have really no requirement to comment on it. I think it was terrible what I did. The second, I had probably seen as cruel as well.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Engh prosecutor reads a short passage from the manifesto which Breivik has described how one can negotiate with the police while continuing to kill what he calls the A-and B-traitors. Breivik elaborates this by stating that it is a tactic that can be used in a similar scenario as in Utøya. In addition, he explains that Norwegian journalists is a goal for him and that he probably would have thought it had been as cruel to kill those who kill children.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – When shall we take any final issues, and I will try to rule this country until lunchtime. What I first want to discuss with you is that you have required in some contexts. We have touched on some of it already in the first interrogation of Utøya. [Breivik: - There is no requirement, there are offers.] What do you offer?
Anders Breivik Behring: – It is … I give something, and I get nothing. Police give something and the police get something.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – I’ll go into something you have called list of requirements 1 What is that?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: prosecutor Svein Holden is now taking over the questioning of Breivik. He asks if requirements Breivik has made to the police, and ask him to explain what is a list of requirements. Breivik take a pause before he responds. – I guess it should not be see as realistic, he says. According to Breivik made the list in the requirement that Parliament be dissolved and that it be put down a vokterråd of militant nationalists. He will not answer directly whether he envisions a role in this Council, and refers to the 22 July was a suicide action.
Anders Breivik Behring: – Requirements List 1 is probably what should not be considered realistic. It’s just a formality when presenting it. It is about me and other militant nationalists demand that those who govern Norway today changes direction and it is that Parliament should be dissolved and they will leave it created a national vokterråd with nationalist leaders. – With the intention to reverse the damage that multiculturalism has caused Norway.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Do you see a role even in the Guardian Council?
Anders Breivik Behring: – As said, 22 July-operation was called a suicide operation. The requirement of the council is known among other militant nationalists, but it was portrayed as a formality.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – But if you had been in the situation where there was a vokterråd, do you see a role in the Council?
Anders Breivik Behring: – No, it’s completely unrealistic. So there’s no point in commenting right away.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Holden prosecutor reads out from the interview with Breivik 23 July where he said he would lead a guardian scheme in Norway. – It was a magnificent way to produce it, says Breivik while he smiles.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – 23 July, said the following to police: “We believe that we are the supreme military authority in Europe and we demand that we be recognized as such. Category A and B traitors can be given amnesty if you dissolve the parliament and the government and replace it with a conservative vokterråd with myself as a leader. “
Anders Breivik Behring: – Of course, there is a magnificent way to say it. I have already commented on it. It is a formality and not something I thought would happen. It’s just a formality.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: It sounds scattered laughter in the audience when Holden reads a passage from the manifesto to review the defendant as a knight, Chief Justice.
Anders Breivik Behring: – [Holden: - But have you thought about the idea?] It is completely unrealistic, it is a formality described in a pompous manner, but that’s what we want, yes. Who will take responsibility during the transition phase is irrelevant. It does not matter which nationalist leader who will take as long as it’s done. Holden: Do you plan to submit any claims or make any offer in this trial? [Breivik: - I think the requirements put forward already been communicated, so it is unnecessary.]
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – When shall I make you familiar with something that is on the side [...] in the compendium. When I take the strategy of trying to say it in Norwegian. “However, should he later demand freedom on behalf of his people and claim that the appropriate leadership is of … Knight Chief Justice must demand the right to form a cultural conservative tribunal consisting of the 30 most patriotic cultural conservatives in the country … ” – “Moreover, he demanded that the national parliament immediately transfer all power to the newly established cabinet.” – Ridderjustituarius ii must also require twenty hours access to the national broadcasting company to consolidate a national strength. – “2000 should be the standard sizes depending on its size. Knight Chief Justice and the new tribunal should then appoint a person to serve as the new national military commander. “
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – “It must be declared martial law [...] By the time you are finished setting up your claims, is likely to judge and laugh at the one side of your requirements. They will laugh now, but deep inside the mind is an intense fear [...] They know that it’s not totally unlikely scenario we have just gone through will happen one day. “
Anders Breivik Behring: – [Is this something you ...? (Interrupted)] May I comment? Ten years ago, you would have ever imagined that the Islamist parties would be governed countries in the Middle East. You would never have imagined it.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: – May I comment on something? Had you expected a decade ago that Islamist parties would have ruled in the Middle East? It had not. No one did, argues Breivik after Holden has read a passage from the manifesto that’s about how Breivik envisions the future of Europe.
Anders Breivik Behring: – You could say that Islamists in the Middle East has become as bad as those treated in Europe. There is a theoretical chance that this will happen. It is read now from the two books that I have communicated in the compendium. These two books are a tekstbokeksmepel on hvordna conducting a coup d’etat. – These are two books written on how to make a coup and it is information from these two books.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – But you’re going to make such claims later here?
Anders Breivik Behring: – These requirements are already known. There is no need to address now. This is of course completely unrealistic at this early stage, but I pass it as a formality. – [Holden: - Here's why not even afford what else?] It is from these two books is all about How to visualize you are carrying out a coup d’etat.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – And a subsequent legal proceedings is this related to. [Breivik: - It is recorded in this connection that the claim can be made through legal proceedings.]
Anders Breivik Behring: – [Holden: - Yes, you can, or should?] Should. As a formality. But there comes a point where we are not as weak as we are today. But it will take some time.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – I’ll just over to members of the Knights Templar. Do you have any thoughts on what qualities a perfect knight in KT should have?
Anders Breivik Behring: – As I have said earlier is a perfect knight, the same thing as a perfect foot soldier. There is a person who puts his love for people more than herself and chooses to fight.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – What personal sacrifices have to be a knight willing to give?
Anders Breivik Behring – I know that you can now use the terminology to try to ridicule me. But what I have described earlier is that the perfect knight is the same as a perfect foot soldier, and he is expected to sacrifice everything for the cause.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik is irritated prosecutor Holden when he asks the mass murderer to describe how a perfect knight in the Knights Templar’s network. – A perfect knight is like a perfect foot soldier. He puts his country and people more than herself. It is expected that the sacrifice of all for the cause. I know that you are using the terminology in order to ridicule me, says Breivik. Hand drinking water and gargle it in your mouth.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Should take a new example of what you have written. “The difference between an agent and a knight Chief Justice is that the latter will be more willing to sacrifice. A knight Chief Justice is willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause, while an EU / U.S. agent is not willing to sacrifice as much.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik breaks out in a short laugh when Holden read a paragraph from the compendium that is about the knights should be willing to operate over the penis and testicles. He notes while reading Holden, and smiles again.
VG: – Holden continues to refer the manifesto which deals with a number of requirements for a knight Counsellor and what one must do so. This includes the removal of the penis and testicles.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – “Why do because one of the parties distinguish themselves with a powerful weapon of them have a need for 100 percent sure that the representative is to be trusted. Government Agent doubt never accept. (…) But Knight Chief Justice would be willing to part with these body parts to confirm their intentions in this approval process. ” – “In any event, the organization must make a surgical team on hand to perform the surgery and make knight’s life.” – What were you thinking when you wrote this, Breivik?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: – I think you have sunk to a low point, Holden, answer Breivik after Holden has finished speaking. It sounds slightly shocked laughter and whispering in the hall of the outbreak. Breivik says Holden has taken out a peripheral section of the compendium, and is interrupted by Holden. – No, I have to explain, because now you have sunk to a record low, repeat Breivik. Judge Wenche Arntzen break in and then ask Breivik to stop the charges and answer the question.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Judge cancels Arntzen Breivik and asks him to stop repeating the attacks against the prosecutor. Mass murderer has twice told the District Attorney Svein Holden that he has sunk to a low point when he presses him about what he was a good knight and foot soldier is. Breivik see changes between now looking at the judges and prosecutors when he explains himself.
Anders Breivik Behring: – I think you have sunk to a low point now Holden: It is important to explain what the compendium is for something and how many pages it is. It’s about a lot of peripheral issues that have not been described before. It’s about potential scenarios that could happen if 30-50 years. There are different approaches that are based on it. Now you’ve really sunk to a low level [Breivik repeat this again to Holden] This scenario here is a future scenario where it is discussed whether al-Qaeda and militant nationalists collaborating against multicultural regimes in Europe. – And in this scenaeriet is discussed possible solutions for collaboration and in this specific case, one of the two parties had access to radiological weapons, or small nucleare charges, as you can get from pirate states. The biggest problem with al-Qaeda is that they are Arabs and people from the Middle East are subjected to scrutiny, that suspicion, and in some cases they had been dependent on a military nationalist to have been carried out a mission. – And in this particular setting here, describes a scenario where you are in negotiations to complete a mission together. Where one party to transfer which cost very much money. The point then is how to ensure that the individual is a police agent or the like. – And when discussing how to verify a person without that one is sure that he is an agent. In principle, there is only one way, it’s just that you ask this person to do such a great sacrifice that it will only be called a fundamentalist who will be able to do so.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Judges notes diligently as the prosecutor asks Holden Breivik if it is to drop to a low point when he reads the specific passages from the Manifesto of the mass murderer. Breivik believe everything Holden has spoken is taken out of context.
Anders Breivik Behring: – This scenario here is about it. It is not representative of the compendium, and you take up special themes. The compendium covers specific strategies for future scenarios.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Breivik, before we go further: I was reading verbatim what was in the compendium, and now comes the question: Is it to sink to a low point?
Anders Breivik Behring: – No, but you try to take things out of context. This here is a unique description of a very special situation, and when you do not tell how you took it from, I think your intentions are obvious.
Prosecutors Svein Holden – I do not think the question is my intent, Breivik, but ….
Defense Geir Lippestad: – Could not you just read the headline of the section you have referred to so that we have with us.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – The title is: Authentication process in acquiring the nuclear (…) weapons of our enemies enemies. – We will go over to a topic you have touched a little bit already, and the relationship between the Knights Templar and the church. Suppose you had killed 22 July, then you should now become a saint?
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik smile when the prosecutor asked him if he should now become a saint if he had been killed during the attacks on 22 July. Mass murderer answer “no” to the question. He said church leaders in Europe do not recognize the militant nationalists who are fighting for that Christian judgments are to survive.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik speaks slowly and pronounce the words very clearly when he answers questions from Holden. He claimed again that Holden has taken the items out of context from the compendium, and seems irritated. He looks a little overbearing at Holden and says “I know what you intend to say.”
Anders Breivik Behring: – No, it should not. What you refer to now, is something I have written compendium related to canonicalization. What you refer to is that we believe that church leaders in Europe should recognize the militant Christians who are fighting for the survival of the church in Europe. – It is to emphasize a point. Now it’s taken out of context again and I know what you are going to say.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – To my question: So you think that you should not have been granted the status as a saint? [Breivik: We find it unreasonable that church leaders in Europe do not recognize the militant Christians who are fighting for Christianity's survival in Europe. We think they are a bunch of hypocrites who lack backbone. We know that it is unrealistic as the situation is today.]
Anders Breivik Behring: – But it should also be mentioned that there are many militant priests, such as in Egypt and Lebanon, there are actually many priests who are militant and crusading advocate, and also ask other church leaders to come for assistance, but are ignored. – [Holden wants to jump to another section of the compendium] You can probably start with the header of the text?
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – As far as I can see is the title of knight, Chief Justice, martyrdom versus suicide. When it comes to the Catholic church ‘. – “Will Knight Chief Justice be thrown on the scrap in heaven when he suffer martyrdom for the cause, or will he selvdeterminere during or after an operation.” – “It must distinguish between several factors in this context 1: A knight, Chief Justice who suffer injuries in clashes with authorities.” – “A Knight Chief Justice who suffer martyrdom through the case and dies with the intention of injuries sustained through the case (explosion or otherwise) or damage caused to yourself.” – [Holden refers manifesto from now] “To be captured by the system protects the multi-cultural neo colonial regime could lead to torture (…) and the extortion of information.” – “The knight, Chief Justice selvterminerer after arrest to prevent torture and murder. (…) An abundance of grace (…) “
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik look with an intense look at the Holden when he answers the question of whether there is a vault of grace that awaits him in heaven? – It seems crazy when it is taken out of context, repeat Breivik.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – A wealth of grace, it is what awaits you?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Holden read a list Breivik has been included in the manifesto of different reactions that are waiting in heaven when a knight Chief Justice dies by suicide or are killed during a raid. Breivik listening and note when Holden reader. Breivik confirms Holden if he read something by an author named Kutp, which he believes laid the foundation for the Muslim Brotherhood, and try to explain that he has tried to make the same foundation of a Christian brotherhood. He accuses enough once Holden to pull things into context.
Anders Breivik Behring: – [The founder of the ideology] which later led to the founding of several Islamist organizations. It assumes that this ideology is that you take the initiative to not only a theological debate, but also an ideological debate. These pages of the compendium is an initiative for a debate that will take this up. – So this is if you have read and the authors who wrote about militant jihad after the Ottomans at least started it as a starting point and must be viewed in that context. The desire is to start the debate for Christian and nationalist opposition. Taking it out of context so it looks absurdly out. Doing become familiar with what the compendium is, it does not seem so bizarre.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Do you seem bizarre when I read up what you have written? [Breivik: - For people who do not know the compendium, it seemed pretty insane maybe, what I understand. Therefore, I think also it is unfair that you take things out of context. ]
Anders Breivik Behring: – But basically, I have not really told you what is the purpose of including such texts.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – We will take a few words about the church’s doctrine of indulgences and the relationship to the Knights Templar. Then I can go into it in the compendium, so you can comment on it. – [Holden refers again from the manifesto] “An indulgence is a complete or partial remission of punishment for sins already forgiven. Exception is for the actions committed by the men and women who assist the Association to all Christians.” – [Reading from the compendium: "(...) for those participating in the crusade and participates in the interests of Christianity (...) replaces the shortening of indulgence such penances for those detained (...) is nedkjempere Marxism and Christianity defend. They are defenders of the weak and the blind. Not only we are given automatic access to heaven. (...) »
Anders Breivik Behring: - May I be allowed to explain the basis that this is recorded? To at all understand this, one must have great knowledge of religions. [...] If you study theology will find much of this here in Catholic texts. – And, to take an example. In typical martyr court speaks to the jihadists they take up a lot of specific information. In a situation where an Islamic martyr dies, they write specifically that they will not let his body be treated by a pregnant woman. – And it’s strange information that seems insane to most people. So going to take up this here is to have studied to some extent, theology and know the premise of how the Vatican justified the Crusades. There are few people who know it. This is part of it. It is important to explain and not take things out of context.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – What you say here in court, it is affected by the sit four psychiatrists in front of you? [Breivik: Of course it is.] In what way?
Anders Breivik Behring: – Of course it is. I know that I risk ending up in the madhouse and will avoid it. And it does not help that you really facilitate that I appear to be insane by taking things out of context that way. – But it is not irrational. This is a theological debate, and it is part of our history.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik admitted in Court that his testimony was affected by the four straight psychiatrists observed him in court. He fears to end what he calls the “madhouse” and seems annoyed with Holden that he believes are trying to ridicule him. Breivik is irritated and repeat once again that he understands the prosecutor’s goal to make fun of him.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Holden read as a new section of the compendium, which is about indulgence in Christianity. Breivik notes on a small patch and smiling several times while reading Holden. He then tells her to explain why he has taken this into the compendium. – The prerequisite for taking this up is that you have actually studied theology and know the conditions of how the Vatican justify the Crusades, the rhetoric they used, what Bible verses they used. Few people know this, and this is something of it, he says. There is scattered laughter and whispering in the audience.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – When shall we move on to another topic. And I have some questions related to the uniform. You were barely inside the [Breivik: - Why do you focus so much on it? There are a hundred factors that should be emphasized. You will laugh at me, but let's be clear that it is your intentions] – My motives in taking it up, Breivik, I keep to myself. The roles of the court is that I question, and then you can choose to answer or not. Ok?
Anders Breivik Behring: – Yes, well, your subjects are obvious, but just continue.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Can you tell us about when this picture was taken. The actual circumstances? Breivik: – I took that picture even with a digital camera. – Were you home alone? What time did it happen? [Breivik: - It is not relevant to the case. I am not willing to contribute to my own character murders] – The pictures were taken between 2:00 and 06:00 at night. What was the reason why you took it at this time of day?
Anders Breivik Behring – I do not want to contribute to deligetimisering. So you can either continue with a monologue.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Holden shows a picture of Breivik in uniform that he took of himself in Hoffsveien at Skøyen in the period he lived with his mother. He is clearly annoyed and refuse to answer questions that can lead to murder a character by itself.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – You will probably get some more questions. So you can choose whether to reply or not. How did you feel when this picture was taken?
Anders Breivik Behring: – It is part of the concept presented by the compendium, considering that I have tried to add the contribution of a battle that will last for decades. It was important to have a thorough foundation. Medal System and the uniform is part of the framework described in the compendium. There are a hundred points is appropriate to communicate.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Are you satisfied with how the uniform looks like? [Breivik: Yes] Can you elaborate on that? [Breivik: I do not want to comment.] – In this interview, you say you have great respect for the uniform and what some of the awards represent.
Anders Breivik Behring: – They represent something that takes several years and clear. [Holden: - Greater respect for the uniform? ] As in war, if you get an award either a state or motstansbevegese. It represents an act they have earned. As with all military honors. – [Holden: - What is the application of this garment?] Intention is to use it in propaganda context of a trial. The main purpose of the uniform. This underlines the fact some of it.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Do you really have this uniform on you here in court?
Anders Breivik Behring: – Basically I want it, yes. [Holden: - Want It Now] I have not taken a position on it, but basically I wanted to use it in court. – But now the judges and the prison’s own strategy for how to do the impossible.
Prosecutors Svein Holden – I have noticed that you have not asked for it since the main proceedings. [Breivik: - Well I asked about it, but I have been told that it is not possible]
Anders Breivik Behring: – In line with the situation I’m in now, that there is a psychiatric evaluation at the time, had perhaps not been entirely tactical. So it is perhaps just as well that I do not use it. – So … Also on this site are your choices influenced by psychiatrists in front of you, it’s how I understand it? [Breivik: - It is affected by it, yes.]
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – We could talk for a while about individual accolades, but due to time frame, I think we should content ourselves with shoulder boards on the uniform. Can you talk a bit about how this is built?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Holden asks Breivik what was the purpose of the uniform. Breivik answered that it was made out of propaganda considerations and that it was intended to be used in court. He says he has not decided whether he will use it during the ongoing main proceedings after he did not get permission to use it under any of incarceration meetings. – But with a background in the situation I’m in now, under a psychiatric observation, so it might not be tactically using it. So it is perhaps just as well that I do not have it, he said. Several in the audience laughs again.
Anders Breivik Behring: – It is not called shoulder plates, but epålett. It represents the way I have described in the compendium is a cell commander. If you are part of a cell will either have this issue or have the same background with purple instead of red.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – What is the symbol in the middle there? [Breivik: - A cross. And this epåletten purchased from a mason shop.] Have you thought any of the number of cross? Here we see a …
Anders Breivik Behring: – I suggest that you continue your monologue. I think dun have gained through your point. Under other circumstances I would probably have been more interested in using the uniform. – Under other circumstances I could have talked more about the uniform Bejer Engh: – What are the circumstances when, Breivik? Breivik: – Circumstances in which I can not be sent to madhouse.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – In testimony that states the following: the accused believe that the three stars was the grandmaster knight, two were (…) knight, and one star was the commander.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik dishes at Holden prosecutor when the prosecutor asks the shoulder boards on the uniform. He fights with the players now. – There is no shoulder plates. It is epaletter, Breivik says as he looks annoyed at Holden. Mass murderer asks actuator continue reading the monologue and repeats that he will not answer questions that may lead to a character murder by himself.
Anders Breivik Behring: – Before proceeding where it is important to explain to the judges that this section deals with a medal system, please state the title of that? [Holden: I have not here. I got the interview, not the compendium.] There is a section of the compendium that describes a proposal for award system and it is quite detailed explained. Now, when the prosecutor take this out of context it may be very wrong impression, but the starting point is that I want to describe a system, considering that this is a long struggle. – So this basically describes all the individual medals, what is required to achieve each medal and award. And this comes from this point in the manifesto.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – That is right. As I read out, the number of cross-linked to the titles. Can you tell us what the terms “Grand Master Knight,” “Master Knight” and “Commander”?
Anders Breivik Behring: – It is not an existing system. There is a proposal for a system and you should review it as such. [Holden: - What is it in this proposal?] There is a proposal for future organizing. I think it is unfair that you do not specify it when I have explained it several times. There is a proposal for future system and not existing. The same applies to the titles.
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh: – But listen here, you choose to respond to us. We understand that this is a suggestion. What we wonder is: What is your proposal? You must explain to us what is your suggestion.
Anders Breivik Behring: – In the compendium, it is described a number of proposals and the medal system is part of the proposal. If others have access to the compendium finds that “this is ridiculous and we will not use, and this must be less pompous,” then that’s fine, but this is only a suggestion.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – This proposal, can you tell what is going to be in the title of Grandmaster … [interrupted] Breivik: – Beyond what I have said now, I have no comment.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: While Breivik enough once accuses Holden of taking things out of context, it breaks Inga Bejer Engh in and ask Breivik answer. – So, Breivik, I think everyone here understands that you feel this is a proposal. You choose to answer questions, and so can you. What we wonder is what is your suggestion, that’s why we continue to ask, she says. Breivik seems irritated, and has an ironic tone to prosecutors each time he responds. He’s still sitting quietly in his chair and looking directly at the prosecutors.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – In the interrogation: Knight Grand Master in a country requires that you have two master knights under him, who has two commanders under him, which further has two soldiers under him.
Anders Breivik Behring: – Just to continue [Holden: These references to the knights, knight grand master, and so on, where did you find them?]
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik talking faster with a distinct and clear voice – including what a Templar order is. He is still irritated, and now refuses to answer further questions. In between he notes in a hvilapp he has with him in the witness box.
Anders Breivik Behring: – It is from the original hierarchy of the Crusaders. One of the … There are quite a few of the rituals of the original Knights Templar which is passed on to an organization called Freemasonry. Therefore, I have found it expedient to use some of the rituals of Freemasonry, because they are the only ones who have preserved some of the inheritance.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – We have understood you that you have talked about these brands. But when you performed the operation 22 July, you can tell a little about the background of this with the uniform?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik explains that he has not received all the accolades on his uniform he is wearing in the picture in the compendium. – One is to become damaged, and the other is for martyrdom, that is to die during the operation, he explains.
Anders Breivik Behring: – The picture is really just an illustration to show how the uniform as described in the compendium will look like in practice. It is only an illustration. For my part, I have described it as that if you want to use their uniforms in a trial you have to buy it after you are arrested if one survives. I had to take an illustration. That’s why I pictured that way. Then I calculated the assignment I had planned and all the awards represent what I had been with such a mission.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Was it all the accolades you have received? [Breivik: - As stated there, I have not received all the accolades. One is for the damage, the other for martyrdom, meaning the door itself. ] – Finally, I take up the thread from Friday with a question relating to when you decided to carry out a violent reaction. As you recall, we talked a lot about it. You said you decided in 2006. [...] – So you deny that you had said this to the experts. In this connection I wish to make you aware of any statements you’ve made in interrogation.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: The prosecutor read from the police interrogation where Breivik describes how he dreaded terrorist attacks in two years and that he was prepared to be portrayed as a monster in the media. – Why have not you dreaded yourself in five years since you began to plan attacks in 2006? – If I would have said it today, I had also said two years. It was the military phase, which started two years ago. Before I wrote the compendium and was in a completely different mode. I did not live in fear, responds Breivik.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – And when I start with three quotations from the interview on Utøya and when I print from the dialogue: “But I’m not proud that I was compelled to do I think it was completely awful. As I have said to the others, I have dreaded this day for two years. I have considered in two years what is acceptable “. On page 70: “This is the worst day of my life. I have dreaded for two years for this operation.” In questioning the next day: “Persons charged safely assumed that he was portrayed as a monster in the media and it was okay for him. Yesterday was hell for the harbor he had dreaded this day for two years.” – Now comes my question Breivik: If this decision for a violent action was taken in 2006, what is the reason you never once in these four cases I have referred to, do not say that you have the dreaded yourself in five years, but two? Can you clarify that for me?
Anders Breivik Behring: – As I have said from the past so I considered ministries that failed. It was a failed attack. It is true that I began to reconnoiter the government quarter in 2006. But I did not think of Utøya in 2006. So the day I saw Utøya as the target. – So when I referred to it, it was given that the Government buildings. Holden: – This was interesting Breivik, we will go into momentum for the moment … [Interrupted] Breivik: – I remember I had said that, if I were to say it today, it was the operational phase, which started two years ago. Before that I wrote the compendium, and when people will not in the same fear. – There will come a day where I had to start at the military section. Then came the day where I had to make concrete preparations. Then, there was a much greater degree of anxiety. You got an intimate feeling. Had I been asked again I would probably say two years, yes.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: The Court takes break until at 13 Breivik applied handcuffs and led out of room 250 – closely followed by arrestforvarne….
Original article: Dag 6, ord for ord: Ville halshugge flere politiker-topper
Google translation [edited for clarity]:
Read Monday’s third of prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh and Svein Holden and defender Geir Lippestad, his questioning of Behring Anders Breivik below:
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – Does this mean that you do not dread to the government building? [Breivik: People dread, of course, to martyr himself.]
Anders Breivik Behring: – No, I think probably that given that the military has lasted for two years … While I wrote the book, I had not the same kind of anxiety. It began when I started on the operational phase.
Prosecutors Svein Holden: – It’s twelve o’clock. [The judge said that the court will break for an hour]
VG: – Breivik’s defenders have now come into the courtroom after lunch.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Mass murderer is back in the courtroom after the break. Defender Geir Lippestad has many yellow sticky notes on their documents. Attorney General Tor-Aksel Busch is also present in the room 250 in the day. Busch went straight over to prosecutors and talked with prosecutors when the court took a break.
VG: – now also Breivik in place. He followed that of former police officers.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Defender Geir Lippestad begins by asking Breivik explain how he sees himself. Lippestad sits leaning over the table. The client takes notes before answering.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Breivik you’ve been asked a number of topics. My task is to follow up some of the themes. The first thing I would ask is how you look at yourself. Can you say that again. How do you see your role in the struggle that be?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Basically, I had no plans after 22 July because I saw it as a so-called suicide missions. I would do as much as I could through the compendium and action.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Do you see yourself as a leader, a Napoelon, a foot soldier, how do you see yourself?
Behring Anders Breivik: – There is a resistance which is led by militant nationalists after World War II. I’m just a foot soldier. The difference between us and other militant nationalists is that we have been inspired by al-Qaeda.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Have you looked at you as a foot soldier all the time, or have you spoken to because of the four in front of you?
Behring Anders Breivik: – No, I have seen myself as a foot soldier all the time. A knight is the same as a foot soldier.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Lippestad Breivik asked if he has always seen himself as a foot soldier, or whether he has found it afterwards in order to “please” the experts. Breivik says he has always seen himself as a foot soldier. Lippestad leans forward when he talks to Breivik, who looks directly at him.
defender Geir Lippestad – I could for the record to show what was said in the interview. Then he says. “The interrogation asks what the accused is. He replied: ‘What I am or what I have said I am, it can be different things. I said that I am commander. [...] I am a foot soldier, no more ‘. “
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – Arntzen: – When was the interrogation, Lippestad? Lippestad: 7.12. Lippestad: – This commander, foot soldier – it sounds like there are two different tasks. Do you see that it sounds like two different tasks =
Behring Anders Breivik: – What is described in the compendium are cellekomandør. There is a person who is strong enough to carry an operation on its own skuldlre. [Lippestad: - What are the characteristics of a cell?] – A cell can be anything from one person to several, but in my case it’s a person. [Lippestad: So if you use the word commander of a cell, there are over a single cell?] – Man is strong enough to bear the entire operation on their shoulders.
defender Geir Lippestad: – So it’s primarily foot soldier you see yourself as?
defender Geir Lippestad: – Back to the requirements list. My question to you is if you understand that one list of requirements were realistic or whether it was unrealistic?
Behring Anders Breivik: – What I really have said all along is that it was completely unrealistic, but I passed it as a formality. I have also written in the compendium. People will take it completely unrealistic, but you should pass it as a formality.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Do you remember what you said in the very first hearing on 23 July, about just that question? When you first came up with this demand to dissolve Parliament, and so on? – [Breivik: - No] You said, the offender knows that this is a formality. Since we know that they will not recognize it. We do not recognize them and they do not recognize us. – And the following list of requirements do you remember what it was? [Breivik: - It was the offer to share information with police. When would I get access to a PC with Word.]
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: The actors Sveing ??Holden and Inga Bejer Engh careful attention Breivik explanations Lippestad. Their faces are serious and they are both of his eyes to the mass murderer.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Did you get access to a PC with Word? [Breivik: Yes, I did.] But that is the first requirement, angry that parliament was dissolved, both 23 July and now you understand that it was unrealistic?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Prior to that, too. It is described as such in the compendium, as a strategic statement.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But where are you from, that you should tell this as a formality, that it is unrealistic. Why do you do this at all?
Behring Anders Breivik: – That’s really just to support what you are trying to do by telling it as a formality. All resistance struggles, now is not militant in Europe recognized, as I get into later, there have been 40 attacks in Norway. One should not forget that we are fighting against a primary objective and that is something many militant nationalists and Islamists forget. – … That we actually are fighting for an overall goal and that is to seize power in the future.
efender Geir Lippestad: – When you say the future, we are talking about one year, five years, ten years, what is the future in this respect?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Lippestad ask Breivik explain why he chose to disclose the required list if it was only a formality. – It is to support what you are trying to do by telling it as a formality, that is done in all the resistance struggles. Now, not militants in Norway and Europe recognized, but it is important to take this as a formality, not to forget what we are fighting for, says Breivik.
Behring Anders Breivik: – You could say that the Islamists’ share in Egypt, they have fought since the Ottoman Empire fell. The first day it appears that they have power. In Europe, it has been fought since World War II. – We want the fight even if we reject National Socialism. We will fight in Europe. It looks promising now, there are changes in Europe with the crisis and it can pop up opportunities. People who dismiss the possibility of radically conservative government in Europe will be surprised.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But speaking of it, when you performed the actions as you did, you had some idea of what the very short-term effects could be, a few months hence, for example?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Well, number 1 goal was to distribute the compendium of all sympathizers and militant nationalists in Europe. And I did. The second was to provoke a witch hunt on the moderates in Europe. And much of what happened. And the third was when to hold the guilty responsible for multiculturalism to deconstruction.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: It’s still quiet in the room 250 after the break. There have been a few more listeners, but it is still far from full. Most included on Breivik and what is happening on the screens in the auditorium, as the press and the survivor is placed behind or the side of the witness box.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But you have also explained, 23 July, the police what you thought would be the short-term political impact of what you had done?
Behring Anders Breivik: – There are several objectives. It will surely become a massive condemnation immediately, there will be decline in the short term for cultural conservatives. What I said was that the local elections would be Labor 40 percent support.
defender Geir Lippestad: – It was not exactly what you said, but I can reference what you said [reading from questioning 23 July], “Persons charged think it’s okay to be a monster in the short term. He believes Labor will do a bump choice because of sympathy. “What was your assessment about that? Why did you say 23 July?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It is very easy to predict that Labor would get very much sympathy in the aftermath. [Lippestad: - But why? With your own words. Why would Labour get sympathy?] – It was an attack on the Labor Party, then it is natural that there are those who get sympathy. Was there anything else you thought of? [Lippestad: - No, it was, in itself, what you said 23 July.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: – It was an attack on the Labour Party, so it was natural that they would get sympathy, says Breivik. According Lippestad he said this in interviews 23 July. Breivik repeats his argument that he believes that the media immediately after the attack started a witch hunt for so-called moderate conservative culture, and that he believes detet will lead to a polarization and radicalization of certain groups in society. Breivik also claims that he thought that Labor would get more sympathy as a result of the attacks long before he initiated them. – I do not consider the local elections as an important choice, he said.
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Lippestad: - What assessment did you do about this would be short term or long term?] Sympathy would go over after two to three years. I assumed that immediately after the operation would academia and the media start a witch hunt for moderate conservative culture. That’s what happened, that eventually led to polarization. – But I am of course aware that many nationalists are unable to think far enough to understand the benefits of it, and it’s understandable. But a few years more will understand it.
defender Geir Lippestad: – This that Labor would get sympathy or to make a good choice, there were things that you sat and thought about prior to 22 July, or?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Absolutely not. There were things I considered. Lippestad: – Before or after or what? Breivik: – All the time. So, I have considered all the time, and I do not consider the municipal elections as an important choice. The only meaningful choice in Norway, there are elections. – This is the knowledge we are aware all the time. An attack will always affect an election. Al-Qaeda attack in Madrid led to a change in government and that they withdrew troops from Afghanistan.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: While Breivik plays with rubber pen, he boasts of the structure of al-Qaeda and their impact as the most successful terrorist group in the world.
defender Geir Lippestad: – A little about your assessment of al-Qaeda and people who have been important to al-Qaeda. You have said earlier that al-Qaeda is a pattern of organization?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Although our goal is to deport all Muslims from Europe, it is a fact that al Qaeda is the most successful revolutionary organization in modern times, as militant nationalists have much to learn from them.
defender Geir Lippestad: – We received some questions from the prosecutor in place of grace and the kind of thing. You referred to a writer named Sayyid Qutb. Can not you just say who it was and where you have the knowledge come from?
Behring Anders Breivik: – You could say that after the Ottoman Caliphate fell at the beginning of the 1900s, was part of the Muslim world colonized by European powers. They also gave the leaders they wanted in these countries. It was Muslims who wanted to reintroduce Sharia and its governance in his country again. This person was engaged in the Egyptian struggle.
Behring Anders Breivik: – And mainly it was a resistance movement against English domination. After the 2nd World War I developed into a struggle against the Western regime. They wanted control over their own country again. He made the theological and ideological foundations of militant Islam. So he contributed to it.
defender Geir Lippestad: – You asked for [...] had read anything about him. Do you know how many books he has published?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I do not know, but there are a number of books. [Lippestad: - He gave out 24] However, in other words, one can say that the revolutionary writers and militant nationalists see this as a model for the subsequent seizure of power. Although they originally learned much of Europe. – So it is absolutely essential for militant nationalists to look into this process. [Lippestad: - He gave out at the end of his life, a manifesto, it's something you've read?] – I am quite familiar with it and there is some basis for that one tries to do something similar in Europe. [Lippestad: Did you read that he had issued a manifesto before giving out your manifesto?] – Yes, well I have not heard of that particular term, but I’ve read about it.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Where did you get the knowledge of him?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It is through the Internet and Wikipedia. A Wikipedia article has many good source of references on. [Lippestad wonder if he has studied them further and answer yes to Breivik].
defender Geir Lippestad: – When we leave him. One more thing which I think is very important to clear up. You talk about the Knights Templar and the original Knights Templar. It is the group you think about the meeting in London in 2001 or 2002. What is the original Knights Templar?
Behring Anders Breivik: – One can say that the expansion of Islam in the 600s, so they started to invade the Christian countries. Egypt, for example. And they kept on with hundreds of years, and leave country after country under him. They came almost right up to Paris. As a result of this jihad, it was conducted a crusade, the Pope took the initiative to do so. – In connection was established a military order of knighthood which aimed to protect Christianity and Europe. They called themselves the Knights Templar was shortened.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Lippestad ask Breivik explain the difference between network Knights Templar as he claims to be part of, and the “original” Knights Templar. Breivik explains that the original Knights Templar were organized to protect European values ??and Christianity. He is always calm and seems eager to explain this part. Breivik confirms that he has taken the symbolism of the original Knights Templar.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Is it from the original Knights Templar these myths that we looked at the schedule in place with a lucky coin. Is it the original it is based on?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, there are symbols and texts based on the original. [Lippestad: It is not the four or ten to twelve, what do we know who was in London, but it's back to the historical events?]
defender Geir Lippestad: – Yes, right. One more thing before I go over to your reviews on Utøya. You say the hour that puts you in a way, that they will not consider you as the crazy ones, the sit and evaluate you. – And I wonder, for example, when you said you would not still in uniform because of how they would rate you. Why would not you still in uniform?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Firstly, if I had been a bearded jihadist as I had not received any report at all. He had not been created any expert immediately. There had been no need for a psychiatric evaluation. – But because I am a militant nationalist I am prone to serious racism in that they are trying to delegitimere everything I stand for. There is little understanding of militant nationalists fighting against the jihadists fighting. – So it is clear racism. So … [Lippestad trying to cancel.] Krekar, Bhatti and …
defender Geir Lippestad: – But my question is, let’s say you had been allowed to stand in uniform. You did not get it in prison meeting, but let’s say you had been allowed here. So had you done your assessment. Why would it be smart and why it would be foolish to go in the uniform.
Behring Anders Breivik: – Basically, it should not matter because it is a right-wing tradition to use uniforms. So it’s nothing special about it.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But you said in the place that it might not be such a good idea in light of those who will consider you. What is it that would not be so smart?
Behring Anders Breivik: – When I know now that those considering I have little knowledge about the ideology and militant nationalism, as one might add up to … One should not tempt fate.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But I’m a little concerned about your assessment of what you are thinking of setting up in a uniform like that here.
Behring Anders Breivik: – It will be understood by people who are unfamiliar with the bizarre and insane. [Lippestad: - Is it megalomania?] A uniform is a uniform, it is not megalomania. They must be aware of militant nationalism. – But anyway, if you should have done the exact same thing and it had been a bearded jihadist, had not even been appointed experts. But because I am not a bearded jihadist, it is.
defender Geir Lippestad: – I’ll go out on Utøya and ask you about the assessments that you made ??your way out there. The first thing I must ask, that’s what you thought before you commit Thurs the 1st killings thus moving up from the pier. Prosecutors have looked at it, but I will finish it a little bit. – You said that all forces fought against it, and that this was very difficult for you to do. Can you try to put us back and tell us, what is your assessment as you did before you shot the first two people?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Firstly, when I was on the boat I considered those who were there as civilians and therefore unacceptable to harm. When I came to the first two, Bosei and Berntsen, it was extremely difficult. That was as far as I did.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But what was it that made ??you managed it? What consideration was what you did then? You said something about this when we were on the inspection of the Utøya, do you remember that? [Breivik: Yes.]
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Lippestad ask to put the music before the first killing.] Yes, it was impossible to do it at the time. I was in dialogue with both and was dependent on being in dialogue with them. In addition, it looked strange if I put on iPod.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But you also said the inspection of Utøya that you do not put on the music because they could easily neutralized you.
Behring Anders Breivik: – Absolutely, I was constantly aware that there were five people around me and they could easily jump on me.
defender Geir Lippestad: – So you assessed the strategy, set to music, as a potential danger? [Breivik: Yes, absolutely, it had limited senses in very large degree.] And what could happen? [Breivik: I had arranged to fail. I had to consider what was optimal to do at that particular time.] – You did that is just before you shot. [Breivik: - I did.] When you set that is not on your iPod. But you used a different strategy. Can you tell us about what was the strategy and the plans you made yourself, then?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik estimates that he spent about five seconds to decide what to do before he fired the first shots.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Psyche yourself up. You have been told that one of the cruelest you have done was to shoot these people. Why do you psyche yourself up?
Behring Anders Breivik: – This is to prevent (…), why have some elements of great importance to you. You are there for fun, you try to do something important.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But when I sit and read, and I heard this too when we were out on Utøya. These two assessments, to set to music and to psyche himself up. How long did you use to make the assessments? – [Breivik: - Beyond what I said in the place, I do not remember. ] Lippestad: – What is the explanation is that you thought of what could happen if the Muslims took over Norway. If not put your foot down. You said it was a counter-notice. If you did not go further, Norway and Oslo would be lost forever. You did it to psyche yourself up.
Behring Anders Breivik: – It was just a few seconds. – It was five seconds I thought of this in order to psyche myself up. [Lippestad: - Could you go into a training mode or did you have a review out there? - I had tried to practice it, but it is impossible to do. You can not prepare for it. [Lippestad: So it was a review you did there and then?] Breivik: Correct.
defender Geir Lippestad: – So said the prosecutor’s questions that you would not shoot the boat crew. Can not you tell us more about the assessment there? What was the reason you did not shoot boat crew?
Behring Anders Breivik: – The reason was that they did not initially under no circumstances would harm civilians or innocents who had no affiliation to any political party or was politically active. It was because of conscience. – It would be used by Delta to attack me faster. I knew it was strategically wise to neutralize the crew, by killing or bind tight. But his conscience allowed me not to kill them. In my eyes they were innocent civilians who had no political activity to do.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik says he had no conscience to shoot and kill the crew of the ferry Thorbjorn. Mass murderer got the impression that they were not affiliated with political parties or politically active and therefore chose not to.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But there was also an assessment you did out there on the pier? [Breivik: Yes, the boat did the assessment.] You have been told what the plan was if you had encountered Gro Harlem Brundtland. But what I would like to have your assessment, when you discovered that she was not there, the primary goal as you call it, the assessments did you do?
Behring Anders Breivik: – What I thought when I realized that it would … That she was not there, or that it was unlikely that she was there, so I thought that now is the secondary target primary goal. AUF-founders was a secondary goal, but when she was not there, so they were the primary target.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Yes, but again I am very concerned about this particular assessment. Sekundærmål and the primary target – it sounds very mechanical out. When you get to an island, and discovers that Gro Harlem Brundtland is not there. What do you think, there is anger, rage?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Lippestad ask Breivik explain what he thought when he realized that Gro Harlem Brundtland was not on Utøya. – Now is the secondary target primary goal. AUF-founders was a secondary goal, but when she was not there, they were the primary goal, he says. – It sounds mechanical out, ask Lippestad. – Yes, but I knew there was a chance that she was not there, since I came so late, but I saw all the time for her, but she was not there. There was nothing I could do about it, answer Breivik. Several of the audience shaking their heads when they hear this.
Behring Anders Breivik: – What I expected was that she was not there because I came so late. I was looking for her, I looked for her when I was around. Something more than what I could do really. [Lippestad: - One thing I wondered about was that you started by saying that you remembered little after the first two murders. But you can tell a lot about where you went and you remember much, in my opinion. Are you still of the opinion that you remember little from that day, it is appropriate for your explanation?]
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Judge cancels Arntzen defender Breivik and ask her to explain what he remembers of the massacre Utøya and what he has read the case documents.
Behring Anders Breivik: – It took a while to be able to recreate the memories. There was much I remembered, but it was after the interrogation of Utøya I got the part. Basically, I remembered very little after.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – Breivik, just to clarify it. You said earlier today that you are familiar with the testimony, or that you had read them. Is it true or is it wrong?
Behring Anders Breivik: – There is something of it. I’ve taken a lot of time to read the examination of witnesses, but just after 22 July was a lot I had not remembered.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – But on Friday, you had a long statement without question from the prosecutor. What it based on?
Behring Anders Breivik: – All that I remembered. What I was trying to say was that when my brain was exposed to trauma hides the memories. But you can use techniques to recall these memories. That’s what the police have done.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Just as a matter of information, then it’s extensive questioning, there is very little that is said is different than what is said in the interview, that is, just for the record. – I want some of the episode, which is also the prosecutor has visited. The fact that you called in to police. 30 minutes before you were arrested and two minutes before you were arrested. It is difficult to understand that continued actions after you called the first time. I am interested in your thoughts about this. When you called the police the first time, did you know that they could not see your phone number?
defender Geir Lippestad: – But you thought they could see your phone number when you called? When you let on, did you expect them to call again? What did you do with your phone?
Anders Breivik Behring – I had it on me all the time and I expected that they would call all the time. I said to myself that I would continue to the caller.
Behring Anders Breivik: – There was a review I did then. Basically, I had no intention to call at all. [Lippestad: - No, you intended to kill everyone.]
defender Geir Lippestad: – You considered that you should continue until they called back. But when they called, they called not return. Reflected you over it?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Overall, I called ten times and got through twice. I do not know if I reflected a lot of it. – Maybe they had no plans to let me surrender. It thought I might.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Could it have been one of the reasons why you continued to shoot?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It may have been a cause. I have also spoken to the police. That I thought that I would continue until I die. Then they called back. I thought I could just continue until I die.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: prosecutor Svein Holden interrupts with the right timing of the calls Breivik phoned in to police. He called first at 5:59:51 p.m., and the second time at 6:24:54 p.m..
defender Geir Lippestad: – [Holden comes with the timing of Breivik's calls to emergency number] So, you testified that you saw a helicopter coming over your head. What did you think that the helicopter was?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I thought it was a police and that there is a sniper inside. So I moved under the canopy to avoid that they got a clear view.
defender Geir Lippestad: – assessed at any time to shoot at the helicopter?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I thought of shooting at it. And it was so close that I could hit it with ten shots. But I thought that it was the police who is our enemy. So I would try to avoid firing shots.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Did you think when you saw the helicopter that the police are the enemy? [Breivik: - Yes that was it]. That was the reason why you do not loose shots? [Yes that was it says Breivik] – Can you remember if you lifted the rifle to the helicopter?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I think, I do not remember. [Lippestad: - But you remember that you did the assessment?] Yes.
defender Geir Lippestad: – You also said that it was not so easy to see what was going on around you when you went around the island. Because you had to have an overview. Can you tell us about it?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It was because there was much that could happen. There were 500-600 people on the island. A person who is hiding with a stick or stone could be attacked me and I had to have an overview at all times.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But how wonderful it is when you went around the island, how did you view?
Behring Anders Breivik: – You spend a lot of energy. You have to look behind him all the time, one must look to the side.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: As Breivik heard a helicopter circling over Utøya, he believed that it was Delta, which came with a sniper. He chose to move closer to the island, under the canopy. He was also considering shooting at the helicopter, and believe it was so close that he could manage to hit. He chose to drop it because he believes the police have no fault in what he describes as deconstruction of the Norwegian society. The fact was that NRK had hired the helicopter, not the police.
defender Geir Lippestad: – So you did all the time? [Breivik confirms] purpose was to prevent an attack. [Breivik confirms again] You have also explained that you thought that all that was on Utøya was 16 years. What you build on the assumption?
Behring Anders Breivik: – The assumption is that I have been involved in a youth party and there was 16-year age limit. I thought there were rules for all youth parties. It was personal experience I based it on.
defender Geir Lippestad: – As you said, you know, that you killed quite a few who were under 16 and you said it was hard to do the assessments out there?
Behring Anders Breivik: – There were not many, it was 7 + 2
defender Geir Lippestad: – But you said it was difficult to make these assessments … [Breivik: - It was absolutely impossible.] But did you at all these considerations?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I did it on two occasions. I saw two people who seemed to be under 16. [Breivik describes how these two people were and how they looked].
defender Geir Lippestad: – For you said that you went to the autopilot, but when you saw those who were young, and one or two extension you do not, the reviews did you do when you shot them?
Behring Anders Breivik: – The problem is that you can not z. .. Recognise people, because that person is very often were turned away. The only way to recognize the age is to look at facial features. If you do not have the opportunity, it is actually impossible.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik said he saved three people on Utøya since they looked like children. In addition, the mass murderer said that he would save everyone at summer camp who were under 18. He thought, however, it was difficult to distinguish the victims of age. In police interview, he explained that he went on autopilot.
defender Geir Lippestad: – So here then you facial features and thought that they were too young. [Breivik confirms] But now I might ask a leading question. If you thought you were going to kill anyone, that it was the purpose, and so stop up and do not kill those people. What is the assessment of this?
Behring Anders Breivik: – No it’s because they saw the young out. [Lippestad: - And you had a goal not to kill anyone under 16?] – Basically, I had no goal to kill someone under the age of 18, so I thought maybe those as young were under it. My assumption was that the two were under 18, ie 16
defender Geir Lippestad: – You talked to him one, saying that this is going well? [Breivik confirmed.] This you remember? [Breivik: - Yes, I do.] Another thing that you have explained over and now I’m a little out for your reviews, too. You thought you had a lighter that you would use to light the buildings, had not any lighter. – So, it deviated from the original plan. Can you tell what feed through your mind when you were through your pockets for the lighter?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Lippestad ask Breivik explain that he had planned to burn down the houses of Utøya, and what he thought when he realized he had a lighter so he thought. – The reason I stopped looking for the lighter was that I thought it was enough now. It was also why I called the police, he said. Previously, Breivik also explained that he had me in diesel, and gasoline, and diesel is not flammable.
Behring Anders Breivik: – The reason I gave up trying to find a lighter was that it was not necessary. I thought that it is enough now. That was why I stopped looking for the lighter. I was going to use the shooting as a detonator and get people to run into the water. At one point I thought that now I have done it and can quit.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Right Psychiatrist Torgeir Husby sits leaning back in his chair with his arms crossed. He looks directly at Breivik when he explains himself. Sørheim record, while the last two psychiatrists just read on the computer screen to Tørrissen.
defender Geir Lippestad: – More than this with the water. You would get people to run on water, as you say, and drown. Did you have any comments regarding the possibility that people would drown? There were 22 July and 600 meters from shore. The likelihood that people managed to swim or get over?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Well I figured that it was unlikely that they were able to get over, because it was too far away.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But did you know how far it was to the other side? [Breivik: - I knew it was about 600 meters to the nearest bank. But it was much longer on the other side, about two miles. ] And that you had studied in advance? [Breivik confirmed.] – You have mentioned a plane, an alternative plan was to flee the island by a plane. What type of aircraft was in the alternate plan you thinking of?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It was a Cessna aircraft, a light aircraft, from Fornebu. [Lippestad: A seaplane?] Breivik: Voices [Lippestad: What was the plan when you left?] – It was to place a seaplane there before … Very early in the day or during the night. And then after they had completed the plan in its ministries and Utøya, fly out of the country. Or mount a sort of filling mechanism, so you can fill the air. But it probably would have been difficult to do so. So it was one of the reasons I did not, it would require considerable resources to do so.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Another option if you would get from the island, had to swim ashore. Thinking about it, or? – [Breivik: - No.] Why not? [Breivik: - It is not possible to escape such a big act. The police are so competent that they would never have been able to get away] You were sure to be taken? [Breivik: - It is because the only way to escape is to be killed] – One thing to which one may be wondering, you have shown the uniform that you had made, also, we have seen police uniform you had made. Assessed at any time, or … why did you Utøya police uniform?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Why I used the police uniform on the island? It was primarily to get across to the island. It was primarily the reason.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Lippestad ask Breivik explain why he used the police uniform. Mass murderer thinks it was to get across to Utøya and to infiltrate the summer camp. He thinks the Ku Klux Klan costume would have been useless since it had created the stir.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But did you in any way this island, to achieve something?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I used it to approach people without that they ran away. Had I gone with a Ku Klux Klan costume, I did not come across to the island and people would have panicked when they saw me. It was to infiltrate the island and it was the intention of using uniform.
defender Geir Lippestad: – It was a conscious choice to infiltrate and confuse those who were there?
Behring Anders Breivik: – But the primary goal was to get across to the island. For it was the guards from the AUF had to verify that insigniaene and identification before I get to the island.
defender Geir Lippestad: – There are only a couple of things. You said last week that you created a repository at the main house. Why was it important?
Behring Anders Breivik: – If you use military terminology, it’s about creating a forward operating base that is not in Delta’s shooting angle. – And it’s a place you can come back and fill the magazine.
defender Geir Lippestad: – But that it was from the police shooting angles, it was something you decided when you saw the topography, or was it planned in advance?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik said that he knew how the topography of Utøya seemed that he had studied many satellite images of the area and knew where it was hiding places.
Behring Anders Breivik: – No, I had prepared in advance. [Lippestad: - Based on the information, then?] It is not really general information related to simple military operations.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Had you seen the angle from the main house in advance? [Breivik: - I was on aufs forum and had seen hundreds of pictures of the camp. I knew to some extent where you could hide as well, and angles from countries that would be used by Delta Sniper]. – So there were things you had prepared in advance, when you created the repository? [Breivik: Yeah, right.] Thanks, then, do not I have more questions.
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – [Judge: - Aid lawyers?] It’s a bit back and forth, Breivik, because we do it this way. We shall return to [one of the houses]. Did you know there were people who hid in the toilets?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I assumed that there were people hiding everywhere really. There was an assumption I did, but it had not been very tactical to go in there.
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – What was the reason? [Breivik: - Expect that there is a person in a room, it is easy for people to arm themselves with a blunt object.]
Behring Anders Breivik: – It is quite easy to do [Hallgren: Does that mean that you were afraid of being attacked from the edge?] It was perhaps one of the reasons, but another reason was that they wanted to follow the flow of people. Then I felt that I had to go there were people there and it was not in the [describe a building].
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – Built in the [room], where there were several who were killed. [Describes a person. The question of furniture.]
VG: – Breivik tells of what he describes as Communist propaganda posters and describes the interior of the rooms he’s been in.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Lawyer Siv Hallgren ask Breivik explain why he went into several rooms in the house cafe. Mass murderer looks at her and repeated his earlier explanation that he was afraid of being attacked with such a blunt object. He remembers little else of what happened in Little Hall and Great Hall.
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – Those who were left there, they thought you were dead? [Breivik: - Well I thought so.] You have explained that you can be assured that they were dead. But there are some who survive. They wondered you? [Breivik: No one can say that.] – What do you think about it? [Breivik: No, what I think about it? There is not much I think about it. It is natural to try to survive.]
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Hallgren: - But you will be annoyed that you are being fooled?] Absolutely not. I noticed that there were many who tried the strategy. And it’s a very natural thing to do.
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – But why was it not enough to just disarm them?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Hallgren Breivik asked what he thinks about that several of those he thought had died in the Café building, survived. – Wondered they give you? Ask Hallgren. – No, that is …. Yes, you can probably tell, answer Breivik hesitant. What do you think about it? – It’s not so much to think about it. I note that there were many who attempted the strategy, says Breivik.
Behring Anders Breivik: – When you come to what I mentioned earlier also. Why had it not been enough to blow up the mailbox to Big Mountain? However, it was decided that the assassination was to be done that way and it was decided by me. – At the end of June. [Hallgren: - Did you know that it was the Norwegian People who had medical guard on Utøya] No, I did not know.
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – You had a view of the Norwegian People here before today. Have they ever been a goal for you?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Norwegian People’s Aid’s management team is a legitimate target. They are considered part of the asylum lobby that uses its resources to maximize the asylum seekers to Norway. – I would not be seen on regular workers as legitimate targets. But I know there was someone who died who worked in the Norwegian People’s Aid.
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – I have been informed that she was a Christian and active in the [Christian church]?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Did she do it, yes. Then says that she was an innocent civilian. [Hallgren: - Did you know?] – No, I did not notice that it had happened before in retrospect.
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – You apologized to Kai Hauge from the government quarter. But there was no more you wanted to apologize to. I worked the front desk, a student who had a summer job at the ministry, she does not die, but her studies are prone. What do you think about it?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I think that the Norwegian media has been poor at communicating the threats that have been passed on now. There have been supplied thousands of threat and the consequences of the direction you are taking now will result in a bloody attack. One need not be particularly intelligent to understand that there is a terrorist target number one in Norway. – When you still choose to work there, directly under the government, so you should be aware of it. But I agree that the Norwegian media has failed in its responsibility to inform about this.
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – But no apology from you, she can not expect?
Behring Anders Breivik: – She chose to work in the government quarter. [Breivik and Hallgren are discussing about a person who died in the government building and Breivik want to apologize for this]
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Lawyer Siv Hallgren said Breivik that one of the victims in the government building was not connected to any ministry or government building in general. Mass murderer believes he has not been informed about this through his defenders and explains that he wants to verify a this. Breivik will not apologize for now. He seems surprised and will set out the issues of victims who are not affiliated with Labour Party and the government quarter.
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – There may be people present in the ministries that meet there, on a visit, but that does not work there?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Eh … I have no further comment beyond what I said earlier. [Hallgren: - And no further excuse?] No.
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – So many people have become sick not go into the circuit. [Breivik interrupts and says: - those I have discussed already, as we have already talked about] Breivik: If I become aware of information indicating that there were innocent civilians there, I will regret it. Hallgren: – Have you tried to get familiar with this? – [Describes a child] Is not it natural that the child should receive an apology from you?
Behring Anders Breivik: – What I feel is that everyone associated with the ministries and the Labour Party, should really fix an apology to all my sisters who are raped, and all who are victims of violence by Muslims. And it is my interest. – Trying to fight it, it will be indirect, it will be innocent people dying, but it will be worth it.
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – You say you can not take in all the destinies of survival, why is it important for you to survive?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I have not said. But basically, I have sworn to fight until I die, and I’m going to do. [Hallgren: Thank you.]
Comments from VG Hopperstad Morten: It is clear that Breivik want to follow up the information from the lawyer Siv Hallgren that one of the victims in the government building was not connected to the neighborhood, or any ministry.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik will not apologize, saying that he believes there are Muslims in Norway, which he claims has “raped his sisters,” which must come with an apology. More heavy audience of sugar when they hear this.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – Back to the situation on the pier in the country side. We talked a bit about it on Friday, but did not measure it. We agree that you took off your armor when you parked your car, why did you do that?
Behring Anders Breivik: – That’s because it weighs many pounds and when one is in front of government building you expect to be shot. On Utøya must have combat vest, because you need pockets for carrying ammunition.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – I just thought of, if you resonate a little compared to what you were thinking, because you said it was unsuccessful. So you needed Utøya campaign. Is it correct understood? – And then I think that it would be a pretty bad end if you would have fought down to the pier. [Breivik: - That's right there.]
Behring Anders Breivik: – That’s right, I took a calculated risk. [Elgesem: - What did you think was most likely?] – I thought it would be a patrol there, an armed patrol. [Elgesem: We're going to [referring to the interrogation] …] I am fully aware that I expected it to be a patrol there.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – I can read what you explained. It says this: “Persons charged had no idea what awaited him there. It could be four policemen there. He took a chance on not wearing armor. ” Is that correct?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Well I feared that it would be, but I took a risk calculation.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – I understand that your assessment to get a lucky outcome so you had to battle through. [Breivik interrupts: - Yes that's right, with or without armor].
Behring Anders Breivik: – The point is that the reservoir acts as an armor to a certain extent.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – Okay. When you were on the pier, so you talked to Monica Bosei. Did you get asked about how much security there was on the island?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, right. She said that there were x number of guards. There were guards and a guard who normally works as a police officer. So I asked if there was someone there who was armed, she said that there was someone there that was it. – Then she said no it is not. She said that Berntsen had ransacked all the AUF-founders of weapons, a fixed routine.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – Can we then conclude that, when you go out with Thorbjorn you know that no weapons there, and no armed guards.
Behring Anders Breivik: – votes, with the exception of sticks and stones and blunt objects.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – Okay to ask you this with the degree of suicidal action. Another thing, the plan that the water use of weapons of mass destruction. You said you wanted to use water as weapons of mass destruction when the youngsters to swim. Then I wonder, was it necessary to kill?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes it was. The plan was to shoot and use it as a detonator. [Elgesem: - But you make more than that, you are very systematically to ensure that all are dead. What is the purpose of it?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Lawyer Frode Elgesem Breivik challenge the assertion that he would use the water as “weapons of mass destruction” and that he would scare many people as possible to drown. – Why did you shoot so many with what you call the shots in the Mediterranean security building, whose plan was to scare? Ask Elgesem. – The plan was to shoot as many people as possible, regardless of the plan. – And at the pump casing cover the people forward, trying not to scare them? – I would shoot as many people as possible, repeat Breivik.
Behring Anders Breivik: – I shot to scare as many people as possible. It was impossible to determine that it will work. So regardless of what, I did the other. [Elgesem: So when you shoot so many in the [building] is this what’s the plan?] – That’s the plan. [Elgesem: - In the [building] there were no more to scare? Correct?] Yes, true.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – So your plan was thus … [Breivik: - It was to shoot as many people as possible.] – I noticed that you were in the pump house and trying to lure young people back and not scare them. Is that correct? [Breivik responds coldly: - The plan was to shoot as many as possible]. – [Read the interview] Is it the right way you think in that situation? [Breivik: Yes] So it was not just there to intimidate and use water as weapons of mass destruction that was the plan, but also to kill as many people as possible on the island? [Breivik: That is correct.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik said he wondered the age of two of those he met on the Utøya, and that he saved them. He says that while he might have considered more if he saw their faces closely, but claims that he did not do it for so many.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – We also need to come back to this with age. You say that it was not your purpose to kill someone under the age of 18. And you say that when you met this little [person], then found out that [he] could not be more than 11 years. [The person] was [age removed] at the time. Was there anyone else you puzzled about?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, it was another. [Elgesem: - Was that all?] Yes, that was it. It would certainly have been more if I saw their faces.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – So you have no faces? [Breivik: - Very few] In questioning you explain a bit about this: [Elgesem go through what Breivik has said in interviews about the age of the participants on the island].
Behring Anders Breivik: – I thought the average age would be 22 to 23 years, it proved to be 18.1 years. As I said, it is very difficult to say. When people run from you, you will not see facial expressions.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – I think we said somewhere that this was an assumption on your part, this 16-year age limit. Did you do some research?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I did not have the capacity to check everything. [Elgesem: - You said you studied the topography, so it spent a lot of time, but not finding the average age?]
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: The Court takes break for 20 minutes. Breivik applied handcuffs and led out of the courtroom. Lippestad accompanying him. Follow responses to VGTV: direkte.vg.no/studio/rettssak-dag-6
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – [Breivik: - I tried to find it but could not find it]. Had you investigated aufs website to check out the minimum age? [Breivik: - I found a few things but it was not part of the information]
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – Attorney Elgesem, it is fitting to take a break now? [Elgesem: We can prove.] When we take a break to ten over half three.
VG: – The court pauses until about 2:40 p.m….
Original article: Dag 6, ord for ord: Ampert mellom Holden og Breivik
Google translation [edited for clarity]:
Read the verbatim minutes of the last part of the trial under the sixth day:
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Mass murderer is in place in the courtroom and will continue to respond to questions from counsel, the right psychiatrists, judges and lay judges. Defender Geir Lippestad corrects a statement he made about the date for a police interview he referred to when he posed questions to the client.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – As we continue negotiations. [Lippestad corrects itself before the break on a date from an interview he referred from]
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – When asked by my colleague, before the break, you said that the decision to carry out the operation in this way was taken in late June. Does that mean that the plans for Utøya were clear at this point?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Utøya and plans for Utøya were ready in advance, yes, to a large extent. [Elgesem: - And when they were ready?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: After the break starts counsel Frode Elgesem to ask Breivik when the plans to attack Utøya were ready. – They were ready in advance, yes, to a large extent. Maybe in a year, but the plan was, of course, three car bombs, so it was a back-up plan, says Breivik.
Anders Breivik Behring – I had well considered it perhaps a year’s time. But the main plan, three car bombs, so it was a backup plan. [Elgesem: - But this use of police uniforms and fraud by yourself, almost?] – Infiltration yes. Police uniforms had been used regardless of the operation. [Elgesem: - I understand that you had three main objectives of the campaign, spread the compendium, start a witch hunt on the moderate conservative culture and responsibility for multiculturalists. At a time when you call the police, when you consider the mission as completed. Is it true that items one and two were adequately met?] – Yes, you consider that it is impossible to predict the future? [Elgesem: Did you, when you call to surrender, done enough to spread the compendium and start a witch hunt?] – I did not know if that was not enough, no. [Elgesem: But why would you surrender?] There were four lenses. The goal was to make it that way.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – But you said at the time the contract was made?
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Lawyer Frode Elgesem wonder why Breivik during the talks with the police told him the mission was carried out and that he was willing to surrender. Mass murderer responds with a calm voice that the information right – but that he nevertheless continued massacre.
Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes that was probably it. And in the sense that they had done so well you could. [Elgesem: - And yet you continued? You should let fate rule?]
Behring Anders Breivik: – At the time I was very uncertain. The plan was never to stop until I was stopped. The fact that I called was not part of the plan. It was based on that it was cruel to execute. It was not in line with the plan.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – You have previously said that it had to be at least twelve murders to get the adequate attention?
Behring Anders Breivik: – No, I have talked to the police is that, if at all be possible. I have studied this type of attack before, if it is to create shock waves in Norway, it had to be over twelve. If it is attention to it in Europe, it had to be over fifty.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – When you call and give yourself is the reason to make these kids responsible?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It is not children. All except two were adults. And all of them were political activists.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – We saw yesterday on what you call category B. It is kulturmarxistiske politicians. Can any of these AUF young people come in that category? How can these children be responsible for anything?
Behring Anders Breivik: – There are older people, most of them. There were two that were under, the rest were adults. [Elgesem: - But how can these participants this summer tenant be responsible for this society to criticize?] – It’s not that it goes on. The main goal was SKUP Conference, and as far as possible, do everything you can to make it. When you choose the best policy goal at the time. So of course it would be better to keep the government accountable but it could not do. When one takes what is equivalent, best political goal that day.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Elgesem will not give up the questions of the young age of many of the victims he killed in Utøya. Breivik maintains that only two were 14 years and believes the others were “youths and adults.” – How can these young people be responsible for the society we have today? – No, that is, the main goal was SKUP conference, the secondary target was the Labor Party’s national convention, says Breivik again. He speaks enough away that Utøya was the best policy goal at the time that he decided to attack.
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Elgesem: As a pure assassination, with no accountability?] It is unfortunately so today that PST is so effective that they make it impossible to work more together. Therefore, there are limitations that make that one must make the best out of it.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – When it comes to … You missed the Minister, and you did not Marte Michelet and you did not Brundtland either. When it comes to Eskil Pedersen, had you found … Did you know what he looked like?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, I had figured out how he looked. I knew well how he looked.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – To the southern tip where you hit the [counsel mentions a child on the island] [Breivik explains what he thought when he saw this person].
VG: – Elgesem describes a situation at the southern tip of the island with the children, whom he confronts with Breivik.
Lawyer Frode Elgesem: – At his arrest, you have explained to you that you took into account that the police would be able to be emotionally unstable. And that the political leadership could be emotionally unstable, and that it could result in you killed. Where did you take the wrong. The police acted very professionally.
Behring Anders Breivik: – You can not possibly say that I was very wrong. There was martial law. – I think it was a state of emergency in the aftermath. So I did not really wrong. When martial law, one must take into account everything, I said it was an opportunity for it. Chances were good that it did not happen. [Elgesem: - Are you surprised at how you were treated and how the community reacted?] – Yes. Yes, I’m very surprised.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – Breivik, since we represent as many as are necessarily a little inconsistent, I hope it’s okay. We’re going back to spring 2011. And what I wonder is whether the government warned and warned about the AUF youth in advance. Do you remember that?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen asked if there was Breivik who called the ministries with a warning in March 2011. Breivik hesitant, but denies that he ever called to warn of attacks.
Behring Anders Breivik: – Yes, the warning that I called in before? [Larsen: - Yes, it was you who called it?] No, it was not me.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – I’m talking about March of 2011 called you or said anything before the 22 July [Breivik: - No, I did not]. – So, I bit back to the government quarter. Many groups mentioned. [Reviews those who died in the Ministry of Justice]. They deserve to die?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I took the view that all the ministries would have died. It was intended that the building would collapse and everyone in it would perish. – [Larsen: - So then the answer is yes?] I have said that it is desirable to only go after political subjects, as far as possible. But unfortunately, the most attractive tower block built in Norway.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – But you hit that is none of the ones you intended. [Breivik: - Absolute]
Behring Anders Breivik: – It was, therefore, if you refer to so-called category A-stricken traitors I none, but the idea was to do it.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – As a Friday in the joint almost half past four, you had plans to hit some A-traitors, then?
Behring Anders Breivik: – No. The plan was to do it before the summer holiday. But because of human error, it was not possible to implement before.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – What we can confirm now Breivik is that none of those are listed first hit: [Breivik: - If you take it in category B, there were many died that day ] – I will continue to Utøya. And I’m going back a little to two different places. I ask you to work with memory, because this is important for those affected. So you specifically for people with different ethnic background?
Behring Anders Breivik: – No, I did not. [Larsen: - Why not? Based on your manifesto and your outlook on life, why did not you?] Is there anything out from my manifesto that indicates that I would do that?
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – You are against multiculturalism, and will be sent back foreigners, and in all.
Behring Anders Breivik: – I have never said that I will send foreigners. It is disloyal from Africa and Asia that will also be sent out. [Larsen: - You took the words not the life of the people because they had a different ethnic background?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen asks Breivik remember more of what he did when he was on Utøya, and if he was specifically for people with different ethnic backgrounds. Breivik denies that he did this, and says he believes only Muslims have deported. He claims that he killed everyone because they were Utøya, not because of skin color.
Behring Anders Breivik: – They were there they were, on an equal basis with others. [Larsen: So if we go to Love trail, you described on Friday that the [describe the scene from Utøya]. [Describe the victims]. Larsen: Describing the young people in this way to make the ynkligere] Breivik: Absolutely not. – Absolutely not. The problem with the pictures that I have received from the police is that it is edited positions. Police have not documented it as they found, for it was worse than the pictures.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – On Love trail you know there are more people who is against a fence. Do you think it is likely that they go there because they are waiting to be shot by you?
VG: – [Breivik Larsen asks if he remembers some of the victims of a specific place on Utøya] [Breivik says he does not remember any of this]
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – Can you tell us how you think the young people at the pump house had it before you shot them? We’re talking about an hour, from when you were out there until they were killed.
Behring Anders Breivik: – I think probably that if they thought that someone would come and shoot them, I think that they had to swim. The fact that they did not, indicating perhaps that they did not believe it, then.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – But, “added the swim,” your plan was calculated to make them a swim to drown?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It may well be imagined. They were of course terrified. [Mette Yvonne Larsen: - When you try to lure them out, how do you think happens to their psyche?]
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik believes that the group was hiding at the pump house while he shot and killed several people on Utøya thought they would be found him. At the same time the mass murderer that they should have swum Lawyer points out that maybe some of them could not swim. Breivik seems cold and restrained. He responds with a calm and clear voice.
Behring Anders Breivik: – You already know the answer to that. (…) It must have been the most terrifying moment in your life. It must have been a nightmare. – I know what I had thought. I had certainly been scared too.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – You said on Friday that you were trying to distance yourself from this: Yet you use words like “terrified” and “the worst day of their lives.” Have you known this in the wake of 22 July, you can say anything more about what this is?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It has been agony, I was in the “fight-or-flight” mode. I was in exactly the same mode. – Not necessarily afraid. Fear is a wrong way of putting it. You will be traumatized. There is a feeling that is completely forjævelig.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – But have you any explanation, Breivik, that when someone tries to ask about how someone is experiencing a situation, so you end always with yourself?
Behring Anders Breivik: – If you try to describe others, you must compare with the things you have experienced … [Interrupted]
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – There are many who sit here and how can you compare … [Breivik interrupts: - I can not do it even if I try. I have suffered a lot of people very much suffering]. Do you have any explanation as to why you smile. [Breivik: - It is a protection mechanism]. – If you had not had the protection mechanism. Would you cried then? [Breivik: I do not know.] Now we go over to the boat people. Do you understand what I mean by “boat people”?
Behring Anders Breivik: – There were those who tried to catch up AUF-ers that I attack. [Larsen: - Did they or did they do it well?] They managed to save many. – [Larsen: - Extension to the boat people?] Yes, on several occasions [Larsen: Why?] In order to scare them away, to prevent them caught AUF-ers.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – Did you take into account that you met them? [Breivik: - I shot at them to scare them away. If I registered that they ran away with the boat I shot on it]. – Can you tell us about the possible risks you put the boat people, who saved the children out there?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Basically, as I shot to scare them away, but if I noticed that they ran away, so I shot to hit them in the boat.
Behring Anders Breivik: – [Larsen: - Was this a legitimate target?] They worked … I had my interests by being there, they had their own interests. They wanted to save as many as possible, and I is trying to prevent them.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – But this is no interest situation. If you expose them to danger? [Breivik: - I wanted to prevent them from destroying the mission]. – So I’m on to another topic, it’s how you acted on Utøya. You say it was cruel, but necessary. But people have described that you laughed. It has emerged through questioning.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Larsen asks Breivik try to explain what he believes AUF founders felt while they were on Utøya. He responds that he himself would have been terrified in the same situation, and Larsen asks him to reflect on why he always pulls himself when he tries to understand others. – So, if you can understand the feelings of others, it is natural to start with what you have experienced. I never said that I managed to take it over me or that I had done it even if I tried. I know that I have caused many people unimaginable suffering, and there is nothing I can do about it, answer Breivik. Larsen responds that Breivik smiles. – Why are you smiling? she asks. – There is a protection mechanism, responds Breivik, with no raised voice.
Behring Anders Breivik: – It is one that has written it on his blog, which has spread a rumor like that. [Larsen: - Spread a rumor?] But why on earth would I do that? It was a totally horrible experience.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – It’s not you that question? I am. [Describes an interview stating that he shot a person and a witness description that says that he laughed. Describes the witness heard him laugh, almost as if it was inside him.]
Behring Anders Breivik: – It is not true. I have not smiled when I was there. [Mette Yvonne Larsen - Attorney Holden was wondering if you smiled when you were not sure]. I think I had remembered it. One is aware of when you smile.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – But is there any reason why these young people say you? [Breivik: The point is, dear Yvonne Larsen, if my brain perceived it as I was under attack. Why should I laughed when?] – Again, it was I who ask and not you, but this is more young people who have described that you laughed. At least three, but we’ll get back to this.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik shakes his head and repeats that he neither laughed or smiled during the cruise on the murder Utøya. He believes that it is a reputation that has spread.
Behring Anders Breivik: – I have heard that she was swimming and that meant that I did. But I think it’s a rumor that apparently has spread further.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – We go to a different theme, it goes on the 25th lynsjestemning July. What lynsjestemning so we here on the 25th July. [Breivik: - See the Evening News on 25 July, when people scream that I shall die. I would recommend you to watch the evening news]
Behring Anders Breivik: – Imprisonment meeting was 25 is not it? [Larsen: Yes] Walk on the evening news that day you will see it. [Larsen: Did you experience a concrete lynsjestemning the day?] – I did not know what was going on outside. [Larsen: - You got that it was rosetog in all Norwegian cities?] I found out about it when the media ban was lifted. [Larsen: - What did you think about it?] – That’s a very typical Norwegian reaction where it is not allowed to be angry and furious. I look at it as a very illogical … It’s not very many countries had reacted that way.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – Was there a line in the bill that it was not roses and hatred? [Breivik: - People need to get the reaction they want. The whole world was probably surprised. The whole world thought I would probably be lynched at Youngstorget same day] – I will just take what you have been treated in court. Have you noticed any hatutsagn? [Breivik: - I notice that people are good at controlling himself. It is surprising. I had not expected it. ]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Larsen asks Breivik explain how he can believe that it was lynsjestemning around him at the first prison meeting on 25 July, and Breivik insists that she will see the broadcast of the evening news from this day. – But it was also rosetog in all of Norway’s cities, did you know? – I learned it when the media ban was lifted in December. – What were your thoughts? – I thought that it is a typical Norwegian reaction, which is not allowed to be angry or furious. I think it’s illogical, it is not, not many countries that had reacted that way, says Breivik.
Lawyer Mette Yvonne Larsen – Is it possible that they do this consciously, Breivik, to not enter into the world that you have established?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It’s not a world that I have established. It was a whole world was surprised at how Norway reacted.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – Short of Knights Templar. I want in on the expert testimony number two. You will be asked KT and if you have created a fiction. Can you say what you answer then?
Behring Anders Breivik: – I guess the three options are possible. [Larsen: What are the three options?] 1: What I said votes 2: That it is a delusion up in my head 3: That I’m lying.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – And where are we in the landscape so that you have made ??Knights Templar were arrested from the 22 July? So where are we?
Behring Anders Breivik: – Everything I’ve told the police, right. I have been in contact with six people, I have not changed any of what I have said. But I’ve probably said it in a slightly pompous way.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Lawyer Larsen read cards from the second expert report on what Breivik has explained just psychiatrists on Knights Templar. Breivik says in the report that the network was sad and that he would build it through terrorist attacks.
Behring Anders Breivik: – I have always said that there are six people. But it is true that you have used the adjective that is pompous, but basically as much votes.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – If we go to the next to last sentence there, Breivik, you say that the “principle of Knights Templar was sad, and therefore he would connect the organization to a specific terrorist act.” How sad it was Breivik?
Behring Anders Breivik: – What I’ve said is that I have attached an identity to an action, that is what I have done. But anyway, sad …
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – Okay. When is the last question. There are many who wonder where this hatred Your really coming from. There is everything from newspapers refused to a terrorist act where you have shot down minors. Can you say how this hatred come from?
Behring Anders Breivik: – You talk about the ULEV injustice which I have described earlier? I hate no one, a person who hates someone can not forgive anyone. There are many militant nationalists who are so bitter that they will never forgive. They are so bitter that they can not. – But it’s probably more the rage, and anger that you see everything you love is taken away and destroyed.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – Because it’s an index everything that you love, many believe, that it may have something about your childhood, and let me ask you, your father, he was a member of the Labour Party?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It is not at all about my childhood. [Larsen: - But your father was a member of the Labour Party?] Not that I know. – He was not politically active at all. [Mette Yvonne Larsen: - We have had a request from the back row that will illuminate more of your childhood. Among other things, a child psychiatrist who examined you when you were four years old] – What’s the point? It has nothing to do with 22 July to do. I’ve had a good upbringing and comes from a resource-rich and caring home. Had I come from another home, I would probably not be here.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Can you say more about where your hatred comes from? – I hate no one, a person who hates someone would not be able to forgive. I will forgive as long as they change direction, answer Breivik. Larsen asked Breivik also about childhood and whether he knew that his father was in the Labour Party, which he denies to have known. He also claims that childhood has nothing after 22 July. – I come from a resource-rich and caring home, and that is why I am here today. Had I come from another home, I had not been here, he claims.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – But Breivik, right conclusion on Friday when I asked you if you were a coward. “Yes, what was the alternative, I would meet the defense at the lake,” you said. But there is no middle ground between shooting down innocent children and to meet the defense at the lake?
Behring Anders Breivik: – So, basically the goal was three car bombs. It was the goal in a year [is interrupted] [Larsen: - You shot down innocent children because you could not meet the defense at the lake.] – The plan was three car bombs. It was not Utøya part of the plan whatsoever. But the three bombs did not work. When I was unfortunately forced to make the best out of it.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – So it was your definition of child. You were concerned about international law. Do you know the UN Convention and what it says about who is the child? All under 18.
Behring Anders Breivik: – That is the legal definition is 14 years. [Larsen: - 18 years, and in Norway we have the authority limit of 18.] – What are young people then? [Larsen: - All under 18 are children] – Legal name of a minor [Breivik has a short stay here]. Whatever I had done it again. Studdert was the best policy goal at the time.
Law Psychiatrist Agnar Aspaas: – Back to this with the-emosjonalisering yet again, as I understood on Friday has been a condition of being able to plan and carry out the killings. Which came first, Breivik, plans or exercise-urbanization?
Behring Anders Breivik: – The plans came first. Avemosjonalisering, it’s just a tool.
Law Psychiatrist Agnar Aspaas: – That’s what I thought. At the time you planned murder. Your emotional apparatus then, how was it?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It was quite normal at first. [Aspaas: - You mentioned it was not so easy to implement the first killings of Utøya. Does that mean avemosjonaliseringen did not work?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Larsen challenges Breivik probably sometime in the age of the victims. – You say you are concerned about international law. Do you know the UN Convention? Do you know what their definition of child is? 18, and in Norway e rmyndighetsalderen 18 years. Was it so hard to find on the internet, Larsen know. – But what is youth, then? How do you define youth protests Breivik. So he goes back to maintaining that Utøya was the best political goal he had when he was attacking.
Behring Anders Breivik: – You are able to suppress their emotions to a certain extent, but not quite. [Aspaas: It works partially?] Yes, partly. [Aspaas: Thank you.]
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – Are there more questions about the expertise bench? [No.] Have any of the judges have any questions? [No.]
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – It was one thing you said that I wonder, that this was that you attached an identity to an action. What was this?
Behring Anders Breivik: – It is linked to odinisme. We want to create an alternative to national socialism.
prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: – did you, after 2006, a new identity?
Behring Anders Breivik: – No, I am talking about a revolutionary identity. I attached myself to an existing identity. [Engh: - Men made you a new identity?] No.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – Have the defenders any follow-up questions? [No, this] Now we are ready to examine yourself for so long. Then you can sit back in your seat. [Breivik be back, and bring a big stack of papers from the witness box]
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – As I foreshadowed in the introduction, we have some practical questions before we raise right now. So we begin with the application from the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation on the application for getting broadcast Breivik expressed during testimony. Primarily, mainly the victims. I have opened for a press agent to come and explain what Harald Stanghelle.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: questioning of Breivik is now completed and returned to the dock of a custody officer. He talks a bit with Lippestad thumbing through some papers. He sits between Lippestad and defends Vibeke Hein berries.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – I will ask you to take a seat in the witness box. The assembly’s orientation, this formal piece, I have allowed broadcast.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Aftenposten commentator Harald Stanghelle takes place in the witness box in order to promote a desire from the media to get the film Breivik during testimony in the coming weeks. Stanghelle’s media representative at the trial. Breivik is seated between the defenders and look down at the table while Aftenposten commentator justifies the media’s request to film the defendant during testimony in the coming weeks. Prosecutors oppose not want the media
Harald Stanghelle, editor of Aftenposten: – My technical knowledge is challenged. My name is Harald Stanghelle, I work in Aftenposten. [Stanghelle represents the media. He argues that Breivik be broadcast during their testimony, on the basis that sane safety issue is crucial, and that his reactions to the testimony is interesting in this. He will not be broadcast Breivik continuously, but the specific reactions that may shed light on his state of mind.] We all know that this is a special case with special needs for disclosure and documentation.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – Thank you for that. If prosecutors comment on the application?
prosecutor Svein Holden: – The prosecution has an overall assessment found no reason to oppose this.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: Breivik defender Geir Lippestad says that defending team defenses that Breivik reactions are filmed. This is because they believe it will not be correct because his testimony could not be broadcast, because it will not be able to say anything about using Breivik respond to, and because the reaction can be taken out of context. Breivik opposes thus broadcasting.
defender Geir Lippestad: – Revered right, yes we have it. We were in complete agreement with the press representatives that the defendant’s statement was broadcast. Now was it that could not be broadcast. When we believe it gives a very skewed representation that only certain reactions to certain testimony. We believe this provides very little relevant information, since we do not see how he responds to. If they had broadcast the witnesses’ testimony, we could have seen what he reacted.
Comments from VG Morten Hopperstad: Breivik see with a stiff gaze to the floor while aid lawyers will present their view that the media can film him during testimony. They oppose wanted.
defender Geir Lippestad: – His reactions will then be taken out of context, when they see or hear the person who defends himself. In light of the defendants have a very clear understanding that he did not want to be filmed during this.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – If aid lawyers to comment?
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – I have a question for Stanghelle. How do you plan Mon conducted, witnesses must not be broadcast, but Breivik will be filmed what solved it practical? [Stanghelle: - It is obviously not the case that the reaction is taken out of context. [Stanghelle reasoning continued]
Lawyer Siv Hallgren: – Despite a certain understanding of the press’ arguments, we will oppose it because we know nothing about Breivik any responses to witnesses to come. Many of them fear to come here and testify, and many are afraid that this will make it even more difficult. – We see it so we oppose as this.
Lawyer Yvonne Mette Larsen: – A moment to, we are unsure how Breivik car exploit this situation to signal something that will not be lucky.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – The court will decide this before the court is tomorrow. – The court has received a statement from the Forensic Medicine of the last trial graceful safety report. My colleague Heather will read this.
Judge Arne Lyng: – Thank you. When I read the letter. The forensic commission has the following objections to the declaration. – The experts in the Commission’s assessment is not used the (…). It adds the right to decide observant explanations. – The Forensic Medicine have a problem to then see that personality disorders are met based on the premise the experts have put forward. – The experts were that a new assessment of the validity (validity) of observant answers about the tests they put the basis for its judgment. This in light of the tests (…) that appears to be not valid (valid). – The forensic commission considers it unfortunate that the experts do not even have included information about observandens childhood, adolescence and early adult age, the period he lived with his mother.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum: The forensic kommusjon have considered the other an expert declaration made ??by Agnar Aspaas and Terje Tørrissen, and pray that the experts provide over an additional statement.
Judge Arne Lyng: – In addition, two of the seven members of the forensic commission to elaborate on the following: There seems to be a difference in the observant reactions obersvasjonssammenheng and in the context of his actions will be elaborated. – It required an assessment of the significance of this for the diagnostic evaluation. – The same applies to the significance of the structure he has served in custody and under observation. They are requested to appoint an additional statement that comments on the above (…). .
Law Psychiatrist Agnar Aspaas: – Right Psychiatrist Agnar Aspaas We have not had time to do so. But we can say at the latest during the week. Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: Now is not entitled Medical Commission set a deadline to prepare a supplementary statement, so I do not know if the experts have had time to prepare it.
Judge Wenche Arntzen Elizabeth: – Is there anything you can say a bit more about now, or is this something we can come back tomorrow?
Comments from VG’s Eve Therese Grøttum: The forensic kommuisjonen justifies this by saying that they believe Breivik may have adapted their behavior to the observation made ??by him, and that they can not find sufficient evidence that this has not happened in the present report. The court is adjourned, at day 20 minutes before the usual time. Breivik gets up and straightens the cuffs before he is handcuffed by a custody officer. He is followed by two arrestforvarere and Geir Lippestad.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen: – A little about tomorrow: As the parties are well aware of in advance. From the evidence of three themes keep schedule. [Explains the disclosure of autopsy reports, and how it is important that the schedule is kept]. [Holden confirmed they will do its best to follow the stipulated time schedule.] – [Holden says he swap places with Thor Langli after witnessing 3] Yes. When the negotiations ended for today, and the court is adjourned.
VG: – the parties rising and Anders Breivik Behring talks with Geir Lippestad. – Breivik is followed out. Prosecutors are talking with the assistance of lawyers, and Huseby and Sørheim discussing….
Original article: Dag 6, ord for ord: Kritikk av sakkyndigrapporten