2012-05-31 AM (VG): Breivik Trial: Day 28: Police Investigation & Expert Witnesses:
National Public Health Institute: Executive Director of Forensic Toxicology and Drug Abuse: Prof. Jørg Mørland | KRIPOS: Interrogator: Geir Egil Løken |
Andrea Muhrrteyn | 31 May 2012 | VG.NO (Google Translate)
Anders Breivik Behring:
- You mentioned "Laser Man", as I have said is that there is an assumption that he is a militant nationalist based on information available, and not an assertion. In the case, ie, the statement that there should be 15,000 militant nationalists in Norway, I specified that it is 15,000 which is likely to be militant nationalists. But I have not said that people are ready with weapons. It is also true figure for the European 300,000. There are also individuals who are inclined to be militant extremists. The uniform of course I thought at first was totally unimportant in the big picture, but still important. - And rightly so specific, I do mistakes like everyone else, and that word, the use of "expropriation", it's wrong then. So I make the mistake and I, like everyone else. And I'm not afraid to admit it.
Comments from VG Jarle Brenna:
Today the court has given permission for that part of the presentation of evidence can be transferred directly to the TV, and we will send back VGTV from the courtroom. Many have been critical of how the court has accepted that some witnesses are transferred, while others cut off. Unfortunately we have no choice but to deal with the new decision the court made Friday: Read how the right argument here. day starts at right. 09.00
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Psalm 250 is about to fill up, and both defending team, the experts and the prosecutors are in place. As of yesterday, there is a clear majority of journalists belonging to the squares, and there are very many empty seats. Anders Breivik Behring came smiling into the room 250 in the day. He speaks quietly to his defenders while arrestforvareren remove his handcuffs. He then takes place between defenders Bæra and Lippestad. Judges has arrived and the prosecutor Svein Holden comes with some comments on today's program. All the expert witnesses who will testify in court today, broadcast, and you can see their explanation directly on VGTV . The first witness is the Jørg Morland of Public Health, which has now taken the witness stand to give insurance.
Judge Wenche Elizabeth Arntzen:
- Do you have current program prosecutor. [Holden says that Jørg Morland will testify Breivik's health, after him comes Geir onion that is interviewing and interrogation made by the defendant. Then, the following three witnesses testify: historian and senior researcher Terje Emberland, Professor Tore Bjørgo who has studied terrorism, prevention and right extremes. The final witness is a journalist Øyvind Stream as an expert on right-wing extremist websites including pages Breivik have used.] All expert witnesses can be broadcast.
9:08
Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- [Jørg Morland is an expert on the toxicology department and shall deliver its opinion on whether Breivik was affected by drugs 22 July.] [Judge Arntzen: - I understand that you initially set Breivik any questions?] That's right.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
The sound does not work at the transfer before the courts. The court must therefore take a ten minute break so that the sound is fixed. It is concerned in this matter all over Norway, so the trial transferred to 17 things dishes around the country.
09:09
VG: - There is now a ten-minute break in court, because of technical problems with sound transfer to other court venues in the country. The court is back at approx. 09.17.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
It is expected that the court should start up again 09.15. During the break there is loud talking in the hall 250 Prosecutors Svein Holden talks to the experts, and many of the journalists are talking together. Breivik are normally taken out of the hall in connection with the break.
9:19
VG: - When the court sat again.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Morland will ask Breivik some spørsmål.Han wonder if Breivik used so-called ECA stack on July 22, which confirms Breivik. He claims he spent three times as much as is allowed in the EU. He took one capsule in the morning. mass killing man says that he had used the ECA stack about five times before July 22 in order to accustom the body to medicine. Morland works at the Institute of Public Health and was asked by the Oslo police to investigate whether Breivik was intoxicated during the terrorist attacks .
09:25
Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- Did you use the drug ECA Stack that day? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Yes, that's right. I had it myself, using three ingredients. The doses were perhaps 50 percent larger than a commercial dose. Therefore I refer to the legal dose sold in the EU.] When did you dose 22 July? [Anders Breivik Behring: - I think I took the 12.30, so it was then absorbed approximately 12.50.] It was the last dose? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Right.] What form did it in? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Capsule.] One capsule? [Anders Breivik Behring: - Right.] How many days did you have used this prior to 22 July? [Anders Breivik Behring - I had taken it in respect to the body grows used. In this connection, I used it maybe five times about two weeks before, to turn the body of chemicals.] So you had taken it for two weeks and then a pause and then took it again?
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik was examined and had to give blood and urine at 1:50 am on 23 last July. The hair samples were also taken from him, because hair can be used to map the use of substances over a longer period.
09:26
Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- [Breivik: - Yes, that is. There were maybe two or three days ago I had taken a capsule prior to 22 July.] - That's fine, then I have in essence been answered what I was going. - Just briefly about the background so when I received this mandate from the Oslo Police to investigate whether there were effects on work time, and how extensive it possibly was. What I knew was that the defendant had used anabolic steroids. Thurs preparations. So we've heard now that the ECA stack has been used at times, and last around 12:00 deed the day. We can count on complete absorption from about 13:00 on the day. - There was blood and urine that night he was arrested. The doctor found a few things, and found approx. 1:30 Breivik that were affected. It could be caused by drugs or mental stress.
09:29
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Morland sits in the witness box with his arm resting on the edge of the witness box as he presents the findings in the samples that were taken by Breivik. As an experienced toxicologist, he explained in court many times before.
09:29
Witness, Professor Jørg Morland:
- So also was a clinical forensic medical examination by Per Hoff-Olsen, as was also taken hair samples of Breivik and new hair samples of 31 august. They tell something about the history of the use of drugs in the past. It is part eventually in cases where one wishes to identify foreign substances in the past. What we found in the different samples were ephedrine, caffeine and a substance is a conversion of the drug nicotine. So we have made discoveries in the urine of ephedrine and of a transformation product of steroids.
09:31
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Morland says that high doses of ephedrine may cause confusion, virkelighetsforvrengninger and paranoid ideas, but only as long as the substance found in the body. For years, however, extensive use of ephedrine trigger a psychosis-like state similar to schizophrenia, says Morland. Breivik rubbing his eyes as he listens to Morland explanation. He also shows no reaction to the toxicologists explains.
09:31
Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- The samples were sent to a special laboratory in Dresden, Germany. And it was found that substances Breivik said he had used. These findings were consistent with the explanation of Breivik had given about the use of steroioder. (...) It is used to expand the airways in the lungs and is used in the treatment of bronchitis and used a little bit still. But it has a central nervous stimulant effects, such as amphetamines. The amphetamines light. It provides blood pressure, can cause intoxication, with russymptomer: Increased confidence, increased risk-taking and reduced critical sense. There have also been findings indicating that increases the risk of violence. Ephedrine can cause sanseforvrengninger and paranoid sensations. They have no basis in reality. This is also the cocaine. (....) - When they are due to a single intake as are the effects short-lived and often disappear hours after intake. So it has been mentioned in the literature that taking a long time can trigger psychosis. There are not many cases have been reported. Around 50 in the world literature in total. It is through the intake of 2-300 mg per day. - Caffeine should I talk so far about. There is also the active ingredient in coffee. It provides an easy central nervous stimulant effect, too. Measure the level of coffee drinkers as there are often 5 to 10 mikromål per liter of blood. Caffeine in the blood are halved in a matter of hours. - I will take a little bit about anabolic steroids.
09:33
Witness, Professor Jørg Morland:
- Anabolic steroids, which he tried to take away the testosterone effect. They are not used much in medicine anymore, but primarily to improve physical performance, not just in sports. It works in training to increase muscle mass. It has been argued that it increases the risk of violence by users. [Morland explains about a study done on the topic] As of 2004 it was found that the studies could not demonstrate convincingly that it was associated aggression and violence. It concluded yet with - according to the clinical studies had used higher doses - its use in some individuals could trigger mental disorders like elation and sometimes aggression.
09:34
Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- There are many observational studies in the field where one measures the substance that is present in violent, for example. They are often difficult to interpret, partly because there may be other drugs in the body. Then there are caffeine and effedrin. What I have focused on in my analysis, is how much there was of these substances in Breivik before 3:26 p.m.. This is because one is often concerned with what is called the decision period.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Psychiatric expert Agnar Aspaas pay close attention to Morland and taking notes in a book he had in front of Morland while talking. Also Terje Tørrissen and Synne Sørheim take notes on their laptops, while Torgeir Husby sits leaning forward with an open computer in front of him.
09:38
Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- Breivik says he has spent the last intake at 12.30. Then it is reasonable to believe that the top concentration has been about an hour later. But this is what I have taken into account, and my estimate is then standing. During this period, ie until 15.30, the efedrimkonsentrasjonen in Breivik been (...). I have measured halvveringstider middle. What does such a konsetrasjon like this? He has been included in the order of (...). There is something more than the therapy doses of 20-60 mg. I have called it "a little higher dose." The half-life is five hours. He should have used this in the period up to 15.30. That means he has ingested caffeine (...), corresponding to 4-6 cups of coffee of medium to high strength. Nevertheless, the concentrations below that can lead to the coffee poisoning. When you have up for about twice that. I mean then that the caffeine effect among Breivik has been considerable, and it may have had a very moderate ruseffekt as a result. This has probably given one one excited effect. Then there are steroids: It is made of discoveries and explanations, are consistent. 40 mg and 50 mg in two different products per day in a few weeks prior to 22 July. It is far beyond that used in the treatment, about 8-10 times higher. We also know that in the anabolic steroier user communities can use a higher percentage. - An assessment of the impact, to get back to the mandate and answer it, I have concluded that Breivik must be said to have had a mild to moderate influence of a stimulant effect. The to compare with alkoholrus I think is difficult, because the rapture is so different. But you can compare his intoxication with 10-15 milligrams of amphetamine, used by a beginner. A typical dose would be about 50 milligrams for one that begins with amphetamine. Then of course the effect is lost somewhat throughout the day. When the explosion happened, and the attack on Utøya occurred even later, it has apparently been less impact than that.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
From the time Breivik took his last dose of ECA-stack, and the findings in blood and urine, according to Morland that the influence of drugs was less when the bomb went off and the massacre of Utøya than earlier in the day .
09:41
Witness, Professor Jørg Morland:
- Then there is the matter of steroids has contributed to the intoxication, and my opinion is of what I've heard, it probably has some additional influence, but I can not rule out increased aggression and excitement in terms of cure of anabolic steroids in advance. It is the summary of the report. [Judge Arntzen: - When we open for questions, do you have any questions the prosecutor?]
Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- [Holden: - No questions from our site.] [Judge Arntzen: - Defenders] [Defense Geir Lippestad: - Yes, I have only one question. You referred to the clinical examination by a doctor and that he had considered that Breivik was easily influenced. Can you say something about how he was considering his state of health in general?] So, what I have included in my statements, defense counsel, only the positive findings are made. But he said Breivik could have easily influenced. The doctor's conclusion on the reason for this is that it may be due to ephedrine, but it can also be caused by psychological stress.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
While Morland explains the lean medforsvarer Odd Ivar Green forward to whisper something to Vibeke Hein Bæra. Breivik will comment on the testimony of Morland, and says he has spent much time trying to figure out what dose the body His tolerated, and believes he knows the effects of the substance that Mærland not know. Morland responds that he will not go into any discussion with pharmacological Breivik.
09:45
Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- The doctor also says that from Breivik was that tired. [Judge Arntzen: - Are they coordinating any questions?] [Legal Assistance Larsen: - We heard a police officer referring to the arrest of 22 Utøya July. When we were told that during the first half hour had Breivik a hyperventilation sequence. Is there anything you can comment on?] I would say that the situation in itself is a more natural cause of hyperventilisering than drugs. But it can bring you to a state of mind where the risk of hyperventilation is greater. [The prosecutor Holden: - Dehydration, it is an effect of taking ECA stack?] In the dose we are talking about here, not necessarily. But it is clear that all central nervous stimulant that makes food, etc. are secondary. So one can assume that he has been drinking less purse because of it. [The prosecutor Holden: - Shortly after his arrest Breivik said that he would die of dehydration. Is it likely that there is something in this?] Had we analyzed the blood sample on something other than what we have done, we might find something there. That it should represenert a life threatening situation, I think, as a physician, I would not have been very worried. [The prosecutor Holden: - Thank you.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Next witness is Geir Egil onion, which has accounted for the bulk of the questioning of Breivik. He has taken a seat in the witness box, and choose to stand as he explains himself. It is not allowed to broadcast Løken's explanation, then the next VGTV broadcast comes when he is finished.
09:48
Expert Witness Jørg Morland:
- [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Have the experts any questions?] [Defense Geir Lippstadt: Administrator, Breivik has a brief comment.] [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Thank you, then you can be sitting Morland . It is possible you have something to say to comment afterward.] [Anders Breivik Behring: Before the operation I tested different doses of both steroids and the ECA stack, to check what my body could tolerate, and to better adapt the dose. It is known that some funds are better tolerate, and some tolerate them worse. It is also worth emphasizing that aspirin enhances ephedrine effect significantly. The main reason for using this is to increase circulation significantly. It is also worth mentioning that the ECA results in heavy urination. It is a bi-effects, and that is why it is dehydration.] - I do not know if we are to get into a pharmacological discussion here. But we did not actually acid (as tracer) in any of the samples.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Interview Director Asbjørn Rachlew have already testified, and the prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh said they will try not to overlap each other's testimony. Løken conducted the hearing on Utøya as Breivik was back on the island along with the police after the massacre, and has conducted many interviews with him.
09:51
Witness Geir Egil Loken, police officer NCIS:
- [The witness oath] [The prosecutor Bejer Engh: - You know a little what both defense counsel and we would like. You can start on your own. You can go through what you intend to speak and take questions afterwards] Yes, I can give a brief background on why I stand here. I have investigated organized crime in Oslo and investigating the most serious drug cases. In addition, I assisted the violent section of the questioning in homicide cases. The explanation here I will first give a little refresher on the basis for interrogations. Then I dropped three themes as it is desired that I should. It is the questioning group has considered how the defendant and the defendant acted and behaved under interrogation at Utøya. It was not a reconstruction, it was questioning. Avslutningvis I'll get into how the defendant has changed his way of getting in after a while.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Loken said that interrogation founders had to repeat to himself that the interrogations would be common interrogation in an unusual situation. They have questioned Breivik in 220 hours, and says Breivik has appeared as the same person during these interrogations that in court. Union believes that Breivik was more difficult to examine in court on issues such as Knights Templar and the alleged cells.
09:53
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Our aim is always to get as much reliable and verifiable information as possible. When NN was questioned 23 July, as she realized that this was difficult, and it was put into an interrogation team. [Rattles off members of the interrogation team.] With Asbjørn Rachlew as a consultant. I meet here as a representative, I feel, for interrogation team. We've all read through the explanation, but it told you with my voice. Our starting point is that we do, have done and would do the same in this case as in all other cases. And in other cases, we see the person we are interviewing a person as an individual and not as the act he has done.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Løken says Breivik be careful and ask for a hearing founders were tired, but never asked about how neither the family, mother or friends had it for 22 July.
09:54
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- It is because it is best to get a good conversation in the interrogations. We use the same methodology as in other hearings, and the same ethical guidelines and professional approach. We focus on that it would be a normal interview in a very unusual case. How are we questioning the group perceived the defendant? The main point to the NN, I would like to repeat. We have seen him in 220 hours. The main impression is that the defendant you see in court is the same we got to know during interrogation. He is a little more reserved when it comes to Knights Templar and the Norwegian cells. He would tell us 98 percent, but 2 percent, he would keep for themselves. In court we find that the defendant was a little more difficult to deal with than in questioning when it comes to Knights Templar. The defendant is patient and persistent. Interrogations have been somewhat heavy. He has compared himself to us in a proper manner. The defendant is aware, courteous and have a good, coherent language. - He is also conscious of caring for others in the interrogation room. Often we asked if he was tired, and he said no and that he was more worried about us. For we were too, tired. But he still never asked how it went with family, friends and her mother. He was aware of how he was perceived. He started the interview by asking interrogate if she had the unfortunate distinction of interrogating the biggest monster in the history of Norway since Quisling. He also talked about his CV, which we described as unimpressive and confronted him with that it would be strange if a terrorist network recruited him because of it. He said that we had forgotten the essential things, which he was elected in a school class and at work. We asked if he really thought it was significant, then he laughed a little and said he saw our point.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Løken says Breivik also questioning was told that his CV not vote rover's that he would be recruited to the Knights Templar, which according to him would change the history of Europe. Breivik pointed out then that the CV was missing several appointments from school and work, and was asked back if he thought it would be relevant to the Knights Templar. He then realized that how he appeared, and laughed at it, says onion. Breivik smiles from the dock when he hears this. Løken says Breivik usually had humor and self irony of socially accepted places in interrogations, and that he never joked about the case or his victims. At the same time experienced founders interrogation that he occasionally smiled at locations where it was not natural. - He said that it was a defense mechanism, it does not necessarily mean that something is good, explains the onion.
09:58
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- The defendant, he clearly distinguishes between the case and interviewing that person has not always had that luxury. We have sequences along the way which can be intense where we are going and ask challenging questions, but when the sequence is over, it's over. When we have had break has accused joked and a pleasant tone. He has both humor and self irony, he jokes with the case or not their victims. He does mainly fun of themselves, often beklostning of psychiatrists and the first forensic psychiatric statement. The humor fits into the social sammehengen which it appears. He smiled occasionally during interrogation in places where we found it unusual, and when we asked why. He has since said that it is a kind of defense mechanism and a way to cope with feelings. That does not necessarily mean that he thinks it is good.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion and questioning the team got the impression that Breivik was determined to perform in talks with parties questioning, especially during interrogation at Utøya.
10:01
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- We have the impression that the defendant is very good at focusing on ... So, he's very focused on the details, he focuses on. His attention to detail, I have very seldom seen someone who has read this carefully questioning her, for example. But while he has not so much focus on the overriding things. I do not know if it has been up that the defendant is analytical, but I can say anything about it. He will often know why we ask what we ask. We must constantly be aware of the way to follow up on those things. We were soon left with the impression that the defendant wishes to perform. He wants to be good in the talks with us.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion Breivik perceived as vain in the questioning. When he was brought into the interrogation room the first time, he was wearing a t-shirt that he got after the clothes he had during the massacre of Utøya were seized. Breivik then asked if the media would get access to pictures of him in the tea outfit. - So he turned to the mirror in the interrogation room and directed the weld, said onion. Onions also says that he would not be wearing any slippers during interrogation because they saw "so sucks out". Breivik smiles broadly to onion when he let this room.
10:04
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- It was again an additional challenge that we were particularly aware of Utøya. The desire to present, combined with the desire to be analytical, he made us fit very well in our questioning later not to ask leading questions. The defendant could draw a conclusion about where we wanted to go, and constructed a response that is not necessarily correct. As you have noticed also in court, the defendant uses a lot of percentages. A special episode from 23.7. The accused were given clothes Utøya, and his own clothes were seized. The first thing to be said when Breivik enters the interrogation room: "Will the media have access to what I look like?" Then he looked toward the mirror and put one on the right place. [Breivik smiles.] He did not have late he got paid for that sucks out. If he were to move in avhørsrommem he checked several times checked how he looked at his hair. We see him as very confident about their own knowledge and he conveys his knowledge very convincing. I must say that in the beginning, we were almost blinded by the way of expression and the use of foreign words: Delegitimere, deconstruction, expropriate. These words were used in unusual contexts. F. eks.ekspropriere - forced surrender, was used in unusual contexts.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion said that interrogation team was first a little dazzled by Breivik's speech and apparent wealth of knowledge, but it soon became clear that much of the knowledge was superficial. At the same time the police had chosen a strategy to verify a lot of knowledge which he actually had was not the most important, the important thing was to gather information. - Sometimes I wanted to proceed with questions to see what knowledge really bottomed out, he said.
10:05
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- I allow myself to read two examples. He said it was like, "the old warheads containing plutonium, most were secure, but some were expropriated by the Russian mafia and sold to terrorists." [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Is it okay that he read from this?] - Yes I was maybe a little offensive now. [Defense Geir Lippestad:] - It's okay. There are good examples. - The second example was that he also said "that it might have been appropriate to expropriate a flight from Fornebu". We know what he means, but it is unusual contexts he uses words in. He norwegianised also a good deal of English words. - As we revealed that the knowledge was a bit superficial, but based on the way things were passed on, we had to have knowledge of the issues the defendant talked about, too few follow up and verify a. The first two thirds of the interviews we had not focused on following up what he said, but rather to gather knowledge. There were times I wanted to follow up more closely, but we had chosen a strategy and not go that way. He said that Wikipedia was his main source of knowledge. I particularly noted that there have been questions about the police have been accused of lying or not. It's a question I think is terribly difficult to answer.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Løken find it difficult to say whether Breivik has lied under questioning. He has the impression that he adapts information to their worldview, even when it comes to historical information. However, it is difficult for interrogation holders to know who is lying when it is a difference between Brevik and friends' versions of things that have happened to him through life.
10:07
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Like everyone else in the investigation as we verify a defendant's what has been said, and it's a bit of job interviews. The day before yesterday it was the testimony from friends of the defendant. They explained the yes on various episodes that the defendant also testified about. And we recognize that yes there are quite a large distance between the different perceptions. [The prosecutor Engh: - Do you think these violent episodes?] Right, as an example. We have confronted the defendant with this, but when he stands on his story, saying that the other must remember wrong, or the like. About when the defendant is lying, or whether this is part of his current reality, I can not answer. Or if the other is lying. This also applies to other things. - Knights Templar, he will not explain so much about. He keeps on his travels on. If this is a lie or his reality now, we take no position on. We see that the defendant adapt things that happen to their vision. He has even said that in connection with the lecture notes he has taken the historical events and used them subjectively to show his vision. There was an article in a single copy newspaper based on police sources, where it was that Breivik was not particularly intelligent. We were skeptical as to how this would affect the interrogations. - Nevertheless, the defendants failed to make it into something positive. He thought that it could do for others that would create a campaign thought that they did not have to be so smart to carry it. Another example of adaptation is called other extreme-right, after he was arrested. He described the laser as a man who would execute people who looked like Muslims. Laser man the stubborn refusal afterwards to be racist. It is difficult to see how the defendant can establish that he would execute people who look like Muslims. When I described the defendant as we have seen him. I will discuss how the interview went on Utøya.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
When Breivik was asked Hadeland killings during interrogation at Utøya, he said he did not know them. In retrospect, he imdilertid said he is aware that they were carried out by militant nationalists. Breivik have been allowed to give evidence in a further one hour during the case, and has announced that he will come with a list of known attacks by militant nationalists in Norway since the war. Hadeland killings occurred in ferbuar 1981, after a dispute over payment for the weapons theft from the Home Guard. The two men who were killed were shot by 29 shots, according to wikipedia. While the onion defends himself, whispering Odd Ivar Green to Vibeke Hein Bæra, who sits on the bench in front with Breivik, that he will have konatkt with Breivik. Breivik leans back against the back row and get a short message from Greenland.
10:14
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- So I intend to go into how the questioning went on Utøya defendants then. We made the first interrogation at the police station on Utøya. It was mt first meeting with the accused in the interrogation room. Chance made it so that I was gone 22 July, and when I came back to Oslo one week later, I had not pursued the matter in the media. I had no knowledge of the island before I started and had not read the police reports, but only images of the island and it was an advantage. It made sure that I asked many questions of the defendant to understand, as did the defendant explained a lot. He said many details. [Judge Arntzen: - Excuse me, when was the interview?] There were 9 and 10 august. The defendant was calm, no emotion, and the victims were the objects of his explanation. - When we were out on Utøya it became a bit complex procedure, but we ended up there, and I sat together with the defendant and his counsel in a bus Utvika. And when he said that he was a little worried about how this would go, and he was a little nervous that he was going out on Utøya, but he wanted to get out there. Because he wanted to explain what had happened. He was put in the same context as the day, the same movements, the same places, the same smells, etc. Because he was a little nervous, so we started first on the pier in the country side and spent some time there before we went in the boat. On the way out as he explained in detail about what happened there.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion, the main impression Breivik interrogation of Utøya (often referred to as reconstruction), was that Breivik tried to remember as much as possible of what he did during the massacre. Onion did not know details about the murders, and so can not set fixed Breivik on things that did not vote.
10:17
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- The defendant said he was concerned to explain as much as possible. He explained in detail and continuous. He collaborated and illustrated physically what he did. There were more details on Utøya than it did inside the interrogation room. Since I had no prior knowledge of what had happened on Utøya, I've realized in retrospect that the defendant has told the same thing out on Utøya as it actually happened. However, there were errors in some places. He had a little trouble remembering the geography of the island and chronology. Some incidents were described in detail, but the wrong physical space. At least three times, while we were there, so we discovered that the defendant until the reasoned response, instead of saying that he did not remember. Thus he must be analytical and have a desire to perform under the explanations. Our main experience was that he tried to remember as much and as detailed as possible when we were there. - [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Can you say whether there was much he did not remember? Was the sequences in time and place?] I did not know the details then, and have chosen not to have it. So I do not know. But when the investigation was finished, we considered whether we needed a new interrogation. It did not. So the answer is probably in it. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Here the court said a lot about Utøya. But the confrontation on some things he says often that he has read it afterwards. How much has he learned in hindsight] I do not actually. I have not read the report. I have included not read about the sacrifice, because I have interacted with Breivik and focused on him. But by questioning people with the skills have been present, although we did not have a full view of the island. My impression is that he remembers more of what happened, than he can not remember what happened. - [Judge Arntzen: - Was it more than once he said "no, this I do not remember"?] I would think, but I remember any specific episodes now. I can answer at a later date. [The prosecutor Bejer Engh - I've heard a lot about the Café building, but did you have any impression that he remembers in detail what happened there?] Inside the Café building was the three episodes that I referred to earlier where he constructed a response, rather than He replied that he did not remember. [Defense Lippestad was there during the interrogation of the island and told the court that he wants that goes into detail on this topic] I agree that we do it. [Bejer Engh: - I want to know what Breivik remembered the time, and match it with what he remembers in court today. Because he has access to all the documents before he has come here] I can tell the three episodes that were different. - The reason I have bitten my mark in these episodes here, is that it is the three times he told himself, but he actually remembered it. The first is when we came into the café building. When the defendant came in, he said "yes, here I executed four pieces." Then he illustrated how he had done so. So I say, "Why do you remember that?" "Yes, here it is the blood stains on the floor, so I must have killed someone," he said then. "Yes, that's right, but it can not be that someone has been injured or ripped here?" And then he said yes, it could vote, "I remember nothing from this room."
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Both the prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh and defends Geir Lippestad interested in going into more depth on what Breivik really remember from the massacre, and what he has read up on later. The onion tells in detail how he testified about the massacre in the Café building when they were back on Utøya. Løken Breivik explains that often reasoned to where he had killed the children by how Café building looked like, for example, because he saw blood tracking or windows covered in plastic. In some cases, did not mean he killed someone he thought. At the same time be able to tell Breivik room detail some of the murders, but it was not necessarily the place where the murders occurred.
10:24
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- As we went further into the main hall. When he describes that the piano was down to the right once you arrive. He described that in detail how the killings were carried out. Then he describes the diagonal of the room as he reacted to the posters to the AUF, which hung on one wall. Then he described several other killings, including one who was hiding behind a microphone stand. He said he was aware of attacks from the sides. In the dining hall, he told in detail how he killed several in the corner. But he does not remember anything more from the room than he had been there. We are looking out and then into the entrance kiosk. When the accused says: I must have killed someone through the door. There was a door that was covered with black plastic. Then I ask: What is the reason why you remember it? There are black plastic, so it means I must have shot through here. Several times in Utøya he describes in detail the events, but they must have been farther away.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
The court takes a break and be back at approx. 10:40.
10:27
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: When it comes to the cafe building and the large hall as he spoke about a piano you. Was it there? How it was ... No. There was nothing there when we were there [prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: But it was there on 22 July, as he claimed?] Well ... I know .. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Okay. So you do not know about it?] No. Then I go back to what I will say today. It's also about defendants have changed their testimony, which has been the theme here. I have made a choice, I'm sitting with 270 pages, so I have taken what is easiest to notice. It is about the manifesto and the Knights Templar. [The prosecutor Svein Holden: I'm sorry to interrupt. But we should take a break now, if we are to catch that before lunch.] It is right to break 10.40.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
He chats with medforsvarer Isolated Ground, still with his hands in handcuffs. onion must wait until arrestforvarerne get by Breivik handcuffs so that he gets settled. onion will now go on to explain about the interrogations have had the Knights Templar.
10:47
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [The judge said to the onion that he is now entering a new topic] I was just reminded of one thing in connection with Utøya. When we visited Utøya with the defendant as the island was completely cleared, everything was taken away. Things from the victim and the deceased was removed and Café building was completely cleared and it was washed away the remains of what had happened, which may have influenced the memory image of the defendant when the furniture was removed. What we now must begin is that observed changes in connection with the compendium and the Knights Templar. - There is then an issue that the court's players have asked me to say. Seen as how the defendants made statements about the compendium. And I will also later say something about the two terms he has used on its own. The defendant has told us is that he has not talked about the Knights Templar other than those of the Knights Templar. And he's an exception to moderate posts of the compendium and published it online to get comments on it, and input. But what about the Knights Templar, he has not spoken to anyone about, before he comes to questioning at Utøya. It is the first time when he talks about Knights Templar in a social context. When he talks to us in interviews, so we have tried not to act in it. But it is impossible in a social context, not to give any feedback in the form of facial expressions, body language etc.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik has even said that he has never talked to anyone about the Knights Templar before being questioned July 22. After 10:08 Breivik had talked to the experts the first time and gave interviews holders the impression that he had received feedback on what he told them. After 15.11 the letter and the restraining of the letters and visitor control, and 29.11, the first expert report that concludes that Breivik is paranoid schizophrenic and the criminally insane. Later, he also gained access to the media. Løken stressed that all these things may have affected Breivik when he made statements about the Knights Templar.
10:52
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- 10.8 2011 - So a couple of weeks after the events, the first meeting with rettspsykiatrene. He has received some feedback on how he has been uppp made by them. 15.11 was the restraining order lifted. He gained access to the letter, which was read by the police first, but it's still an impact source. 29.11, the first trial quaint report presented. Some findings in the report and the conclusion was presented to him. Because it contained references to interrogation, he was unable to access the full report before 12/13/11 The defendant had access to the full report and access to media. Then he was interacting with others in prison and observation team that the other legal experts, the team brought in I will first describe how he described the Knights Templar, the compendium early in the case, then a summary, and saw how he looked at the two later in sk and as the terms commander and (...).
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion Breivik says that in the beginning talking about the Knights Templar as an organization consisting of very talented people who were "extremely intelligent". He thought they were between 113 and 80 people in Europe, that they would eventually get the factory capacity and ability to create a "poor man's nuclear bomb." - This was what we had to deal with the Knights Templar in the early interrogations say onion.
10:55
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- When the defendant in the beginning was to tell of Knights Templar, he said that he was cellekommenadør and that it was 15,000 milli Aunt nationalists in Norway. The fact that he was the commander meant that there were at least two members in Norway, and he had sympathizers in the PST and the authorities. When he was arrested he said he was commander of the resistance movement, which he also talked about as the anti-communist resistance movement, and he said he thought he might be elected Grand Master in Europe after the operation. He then said that it is special about Knights Templar was that they focused on getting hold of a few extremely talented individuals, who were not on watch lists and kept a low profile. He said they had 80 members, but everyone was extremely potent. Later he said that it was a tiny bit organization with 15-30 members, but he thought that it had grown by several hundred after the operation. He has since said in between 13 and 80 members. [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: In Europe?] Yes. He describes, however, that it will be the largest revolutionary organization right wing in Europe. They were to obtain laboratory and build a "poor man's nuclear bomb."
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
While onion explains, says psychiatrist Torgeir Husby something to his colleague Synne Sørheim. She nods and keeps notes on her laptop on her lap. Both Terje Tørrissen and Agnar Aspaas also sits and takes notes.
10:58
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- When it comes to the compendium as defendant explained that he traveled from London in 2002 with approximately 50-60 pages and notes that he had given a lot in addition to the notes. On this basis he made the compendium. It would be a compendium of the new direction of the national conservative. In interview the defendant said that he had spent four years full-time on the manifest. He said first that he wrote the 2006 to 2007 or 2007 to 2008, and that he was finished in October 2009. It was the most expensive he had done at a cost of two million. The defendant's task in the organization, which he described as relatively large and strong was writing the compendium where the presentation and distribution was important. - The same day as he said that he had made a post in the compendium, a part-document to his defense counsel use in the trial. He would also bring along three sides of the compendium in court to being held in custody. So he made it clear what the compendium was, and that it was not made for Norway, that in a way it was designed for an English audience. He also said that the compendium was the operation itself, Utøya was just fireworks. However, in the same interview, after the defendant was pushed a little on what kind of background material he had brought from London, and when he said that after all this was only a draft. Not a finished product, but a version.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Interrogation team realized early on that the distribution of the so-called compendium was the most important for Breivik. He talked a lot about how much time and money he had used to create it, and that he had been asked to make the Knights Templar.
11:02
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- It is true insofar as the defendant wrote the manifesto itself, that he wants people with the right skills who can develop the compendium he has written. Facts about the Knights Templar, he constantly refers to the compendium, "I've already written about in the compendium." A summary of how we perceived Knights Templar in the beginning: He is the leader in Norway and after the operation he wonders if he can be elected head of KT in Europe. It wants to become a pan-European organization. They have up to 800 members now and it is 15,000 militant nationalists only in Norway, and it is symptatisører within the police and PST. Breivik talking about the "poor man's nuclear bomb." The two other Norwegian cells and the remaining cells in Europe is described in a manner that they are gifted with implementing the will and ability. This organization has accused the task to write a compendium, to collect from the reactionary right wing in Europe. The distribution of the compendium was the main target of 22.7 events. That he at an early stage will use parts of it in an early trial, could mean that he was responsible for the compendium as it was written there and then.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik testified about his uniform before he got to know the conclusion of the forensic psychiatric statement. - He explained fairly colorful, says onion. After he learned that he be declared insane, he chose, however, to downplay the significance of the uniform strong. He also said that in hindsight, he has considered whether he should have brult second adjectives than he had in kompnediet. Psychiatrist Torgeir Husby leans forward and stares at Breivik when the onion tells it.
11:03
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Then we go to that change. As has emerged in court, then the word "glossy picture" first used in interrogations 10/11/2011. He says what he has said what he said to give a glossy picture of the Knights Templar, but the organization actually is under establishment. So he uses the word first turn 01/03/2012. Then said he also "pompous" for the first time. He explains himself later still pretty colorful on the uniform before he becomes familiar with the psychiatric report. What he said about the uniform he uses later to explain what he means by saying he "spoke pompous." When he found out about the irresponsible report, he said immediately that he had to become more defensive in interviews. And maybe he should have used other adjectives in the manifest. He gained access to the media and report the same day.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
As Breivik also testified in court before, he claimed to police that he had tried on a "pompous presentation" of the manifest and Knights Templar, in a bid to get more recruitment.
11:07
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- where he talked about expressing themselves shamelessly. He had chosen at the beginning of the case, a strategy to talk about the Knights Templar in a pompous way, he said both interviewing and court savvy. When he read the media that he had communicated in a way that was not understood correctly by others. He realized he had to change the strategy. He had been isolated and did not understand how he had been conceived before he got access to the media and the forensic psychiatric statement. For the police it was part of an interrogation 1 March 2012 that we really noticed the change in the defendant's way of talking about the Knights Templar. It was the first interrogation we should have a line change and went closer to the theme. But I would stress that it was defendant himself who went into detail on his way to talk about the Knights Templar, until he was confronted. So it was questioning the 1st March 8 and we had a new experience of the Knights Templar and the compendium. The pompous mediation had not worked, so he had deliberately toned down how he expresses himself. - What I got to know now is that the Knights Templar is a very small group of people with a common ideology. What he has described in the compendium is that it is an international environment. He has only met with four others, two in Norway. This stands in contrast to when he assumed that there were 130 members. The defendant claimed during interrogation that the network exists, but it is described in such a way that they want it to be. The compendium was then presented as a glossy picture, like a pompous account of reality, and so it could be. The defendant understands that there are many who think the compendium is ridiculous, but his problem is that he has been alone. - At the same time he emphasizes that the compendium is written for a specific audience and it is not for everyone to understand. The defendant ends up writing himself a cell and the compendium was the target audience. To call the organization KT was a public relations strategy. They went into the identity because it was salgsbar. Then I go into the concept of civil war. In the interview on 22.7 Utøya said defendants nine times that civil war had started. Norway is in civil war. The next day, said he this was the start of a civil war. He said during interrogation 22.11 that they consider the conflict today as a very long civil war that will last up to 70 years. It began in 1999 when the Bondevik government approved the invasion of Serbia. The defendant has stated that a civil war, as it is perceived by most is that people running around the streets with Kalashnikov as they do in the Middle East. 08.03.12, he says that he has never said that it is a civil war. We are in Phase 1 This means that there may be terrorist attacks. He has never said that we are in a civil war, but that it could develop into a civil war in the conventional sense, as he has described in the compendium, and as was stated in court yesterday.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik has repeatedly talked about the civil war in Europe, but eventually clarifies that he does not believe there is talk of a conventional civil war, but that there is a danger of this. He made a similar moderation when he used the word cell commander, as he stopped using the 29.11 - the same day as an expert witness report came. After this he used the term foot soldier. Onions go through the changes in Breivik's explanations, where the biggest change happened after he had learned of the conclusion of the first two experts. onion believe the clearest two changes in Breivik's explanation was 1 and 8 March 2012, when he testified about the Knights Templar. He described himself as more like the average, and the recruitment process to the Knights Templar to be more random.
11:14
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- As to the concept of commander. I'll go into that. Already in connection with telephone calls to police from Utøya, as he calls himself that. I think it was in the anti-communist resistance movement. In questioning the next day, he describes himself as that. He says he is cell commander and that there are two other under him. 11/09/2011 the word "foot soldier" was first mentioned when he says he does not want is a soldier in the traditional context. The next time he mentions the word, he says that he is just a foot soldier. He also says later that "yes, I am Commander cell. This means that I lead two others, and not an army of thousands. "The word is not said again. But the foot soldier is mentioned again twice in March 2012, and also here in court, as far as I understand. What I can confirm is that the defendant's way of explaining himself to have changed, he even said straight out that he needed it after he became aware of irresponsible report in December, and that "the strategy to be pompous, had failed . "The biggest change in the interrogation came in March 2012. They were prominent. - I can only briefly say that for us who sat in the back room on the 1st March as we all reacted with amazement at the way things were passed on. We looked at each other and said "what was what happened." There was another person sitting there. Sorry, there was not another person but the way he passed on was really transformed when he talked about the Knights Templar. Compendium was initially stated that he had laid down several years and was the main reason for the operation and procedures. Now it's a product that would sell a network that was being established. The defendant actually said on one occasion that the compendium was not important. Ever conclusion: the most significant changes took place on 1 March and 8 March. The core of what the defendant has said has been fixed and that is that he has visited a Serb in Liberia and went to an establishment meeting in London and was a proxy for the Serb. He met other people in London during the meeting. The defendant was one of two who was commissioned to write the lecture notes and design principles to the Knights Templar based on info from London. The defendant has gone to Balitkum, there are two cells in Norway and he is the head of the. Everything in the manifest is true and it has accused almost all the way, albeit expressed in different ways, in interviews and also here. - [Engh: - As I have just a couple of follow-up question for you. We've all been a little concerned about it when he starts to use the word "glossy picture" and "pompous." So I understand that he for the first time, 18 October, have used the word "glossy picture" of Knights Templar. But then you say he is a few days later explained on his uniform, and then use the term "colorful". What is it?] We went through piece by piece uniform and medals, and it was described in a way that struck a balance from such defendant had explained about the Knights Templar in the past. [Engh: - So there was no difference from how he talked about the Knights Templar before?] No, I would rather say that it was in the same line. He even said that it would be disrespectful to wear the uniform in the interrogation room, because he had such great respect for the uniform. - he would not put on it because he had respect for the uniform. [The prosecutor Engh: - Was he still interested in wanting to have it on during a trial?] I do not think so. [The prosecutor Engh: - So you have told that the very nature of the first expert report, he gets access to in December. The first marked difference you notice in March. What happens in the period between December and March?] I have also tried to think through when I have prepared me. It is consistent is that this is very much about the Knights Templar. Although there is a theme, it would appear all the way up. It must almost be the answer to that. [The prosecutor Engh: - If I'm going to summarize: He is another way to pass on. The scope of the Knights Templar. Are there any related to the use of the uniform?] We have not talked much about the uniform. He believes it is one of the teams have forwarded the the pompous about. [The prosecutor Engh: - Changed his view of himself in March, who he is and what he can or can not?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion said he got the impression that Breivik had not expected to be known insane, but that it is difficult to say whether he was surprised.
11:23
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Previously, both the defendant described himself as very intelligent, and described based on the criteria of the Knight Templar that he would keep it in order to get into. When we deal with it in March, so the selection is rather described as random, that he had average intelligence, and only did so well at school. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Early in the case he spoke of civil war, but said he had never said it later?] Defendant his words intact. It's hard to take someone in a lie, as I said. The way things are passed on makes us perceive things in a way, and so is it that we think "yes, that's correct, but ..." He says, for example, straight out that we are in civil war, but then the later phase 1 and not the way we think about it. That he never meant conventional civil war, which he explains in March. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: Did he express surprise over how we look at him when he got the media and report? Did you get any impression of it?] - I got the impression that he is not expected to be known irresponsible. If he was surprised or not I should not say. But that message did not reach out as he hoped, is the recognition that he was surprised. [The prosecutor Inga Bejer Engh: As I have not further questions.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Lippestad want to know how it is related to that already Breivik 08.10 - ie before the conclusion of the first two expert witnesses were ready - said he had conveyed Knights Templar as a glossy picture. Løken believes the defendant is not at this time had the full understanding of how he was perceived, especially because he did this with a detailed explanation of the uniform of the Knights Templar. He holds fast therefore in that the big change came in March this year, after Breivik was declared utliregenlig. Lippestad argues that Breivik described the KT network as "more dangerous" than it was, to achieve benefits that computer through negotiations. - It is clear that a man who has carried out what we know has happened, such a man is taken seriously and a man like that does not blow up a network to be heard, answer onion.
11:27
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Defense Lippestad: - What everyone agrees on is that 18 September 2011 saw Breivik said that the Knights Templar, as he described it earlier, is a glossy picture and under establishment. Can you be more specific when he has changed in the position until March. What does he change in March, which differs from what he has said] He says the more or less verbatim in March the same, we are agreed. But the fact that he has used the words of which has not led to a change in the way of communicating in general, as we understood later. I can not say he has not changed, but our experience of it struck out in full in March. The recognition of the way to communicate on the pompous, I think it was not fully present on 18 september because he conveyed his view of the uniform in the same way he talked about the Knights Templar in the past. [Defense Lippestad: - What we have agreed as well, is that he can explain that he lifted the Knights Templar in the beginning, and then took it down. Can you tell us about the beginning there were other factors in the explanation or the relationship between those who were especially in the beginning that was not so common. I can give you a keyword: negotiation] Yes, negotiations. [Defense Lippestad: - Can you tell us about it, how you and you looked at these negotiations] - On Utøya, as has been mentioned in court earlier, was accused early on to make any claims to explain to the police . I assume that is what you referring to? [Lippestad: - Yes, I thought of these practical things he wants.] Yes. It's not unusual that some demands in interview situations. What was especially the case here, was that we were so lucky that we had established a group interview, where we distinguished very clearly between the roles of the group. Those who took the examination, they had nothing to do with negotiations. I had nothing to do with it. It was completely separate from my role. NN had a full view of it and took care of all negotiations. I can say what I know, and there was some back and forth about the requirements that the accused had asked, that was it. But I do not quite understand how it affects hearing.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
There are many empty seats in the hall 250 in the day. Most people attending are journalists, but some affected and aid lawyers are also included. For many of the bereaved and survivors have the autopsy reports and witness statements from Utøya and government quarter been more important to get around than the police witnesses and expert witnesses.
11:29
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Defense Lippestad: You act now on behalf of the interrogation team. Have you discussed the accused at the beginning or perhaps made the KT network more dangerous than it really is, to achieve things in a negotiation? Of the type: If I get a printer, I tell nothing about this network, and it is dangerous. Assessed you as if we are to enter into negotiations or not?] We must remember the situation in Norway 22 and 23 July. Norway is under attack. It is a terribly uncertain situation. The key witness is the defendant. It was stated that the purpose of the attack was to weaken the state. It is clear that a man who has done this will be taken seriously. He does not need to blow something up networks to be heard. Therefore, we have not talked about it. [Defense Lippestad: - But is not intended to reveal any medvirkere] But back to your question: if the defendant had served to blow up their networks to be heard. We have not discussed. - [Judge Wenche Elisabeth Arntzen: Now you can in and of itself to answer for yourself, whether you've done your thoughts?] I have not thought of that idea personally. I do not know that others have done it, either. [Defend Geir Lippestad: You said Breivik has some knowledge, but some of it is superficial. When you go in depth revealed it. I know you have gone in depth with such as bomb experts in the neighboring room during questioning. Can you say something about his knowledge of explosives?] If we take specific about explosives, I'm no bomb expert and we brought in others to help. The bomb that he actually has his team has proven that he has to make. Our focus was whether he had help. We should have questioned it and had the assistance of chemists and bomb group in advance and on the way. But an assessment took place in parallel if we were to do that in Utøya and be questioned on the spot. As I said, I'm no expert, but I know that those were partly became impressed with the detail of his bomb. There was no need to conduct interviews on site.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
onion said Breivik's knowledge in many areas seemed to be superficial, and defends Geir Lippestad want to know what he could to build a bomb. During the interrogations they brought a bomb expert who could confirm that Breivik had knowledge to build a bomb. - About to build the bomb, at least, say onion.
11:36
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Defense Lippestad: - So, the experts believed this was the depth of knowledge to make a bomb] In making the bomb anyway. [Defense Lippestad: - You also mentioned that the "poor man's nuclear bomb." When I think of big states that are struggling to obtain it, but he explained what he meant by that? As he said, told KT network could provide] Yes, the "poor man's atomic bomb," it's not necessarily a nuclear bomb but a bomb with radioactive materials. [Defense Lippestad: - Yes, I will not tell what it is in the detail, but one might imagine it was actually a nuclear bomb that they could provide] [Lippestad gives the word to one of the other defenders] [Defense Isolated Ground: - The terms of his contact with other people in the questioning. If you have any idea of whether the defendant has been worried about disease and infection in contact with others?] No. [Defense Isolated Ground: - He has received various types of food, he expressed concern about infection and intoxication of what he has been questioned?] No. [The witness says Breivik has a different type of food than the one he received in prison]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Defender Isolated Ground begins to speak and ask onion has noticed that Breivik was particularly concerned about the infection when he is in contact with arrestforvarere, interviewing, and others. He has not. Grounded ask whether Breivik has responded to the infection in the food he gets in the questioning. - In the interview he would be junk, rather than the Fjordland diet he is on now, so it was rather the opposite, says onion. Among the elements of the first expert report that concludes that Breivik is unaccountable, it is mentioned that he was worried about infection and wore masks inside. Breivik has denied this and says he only did it once to avoid getting sick before a field competition in pistol shooting.
11:38
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Grounded: - Have you seen the defendant to make themselves meant to know what others think? I mean as purely supernatural phenomena.] I have not experienced. The defendant has described himself as a good seller, and seller as you can reach using some steps, but to read minds is not one of them. [Judge Arntzen: - Has the coordinating aid lawyers have any questions?] [Yvonne Mette Larsen: - Yes. The first interview that you led in August, the 9th or 8?] There were 9 august. [Larsen: - The impression you got from Breivik 9 august, there are some deviations from the way you perceive him today?] No, it is the same Breivik. I think he might have been a little more reserved with the Knights Templar, but it may have something with the setting to do. - [Lawyer Larsen: - Up to how many hours have a single interrogation lasted?] It was just gone up to excess of 11 hours. [Lawyer Larsen: - Has he shown any reaction when it is approaching that time?] Then I must emphasize that we have not been at a stretch. We have a long lunch break that has stretched into an hour and a half. But of course at the end of such questioning is a little gåen. The defendant says that he is a bit gåen. [Lawyer Larsen: - What he tends to respond when you ask how he is] that he is fine and that we would like to continue. [Lawyer Larsen: - How many hours have you spent with him?] Approximately 70 [Lawyer Larsen: - Have you formed any thoughts about his health condition?] Only in the popular sense. I remember that I personally responded to the defendant to give evidence about so many ugly acts in such a pragmatic way early in the interrogations. [Lawyer Larsen: - Have you considered if he had a need for health care?] No, no more (....) [Lawyer Larsen - If he had needed medical attention as you see it?] Then it is natural to reflect whether a person needs medical attention or not. It was not done before the first trial expert report came. [Lawyer Larsen: - When the report came, it was then made some efforts to adapt any questioning if he was psychotic?]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Synne Sørheim take up when the other team and expert observers from Dikemark observed Breivik, as to whether he may have been påvriket of them before he changed his statement at the beginning of March. Onion has no answer to this, but Terje Tørrissen said that the observation team had not really started until Breivik changed testimony. If Breivik was affected, it had also come from the approximately five calls Aspaas and Tørrissen had with him before this time. Sørheim together with his colleague Torgeir Husby concluded that Breivik is unaccountable, while Tørrissen and his colleague Aspaas believes the opposite. Breivik himself has admitted that he has tailored his testimony to the first conclusion, because he wants to be judged sane.
11:43
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- Our way of taking the examination is also tilapasset vulnerable witnesses. It was an assessment that the factors that were present did not affect the way we did the questioning. [Cute lawsuit Synne Sørheim: You went initially through various changes. What I wonder is whether you can put into the defendant's way to mention the Knights Templar. Thus, you can place it in relation to when they started talking with our colleagues on the other psychiatric report?] I do not have the dates with me. It is obviously relevant. Might help your colleagues? [Legal Expert Terje Dry Ice: The first call was 17.2. We had five or six calls in February. The team was to observe came in 29.2. The conversations are recorded on audio tape, and they are sometimes typed as they took place.] The answer is then that five or six meetings with them prior to our interview 1 March, and the team barely inside. [Legal Expert Terje Dry ice: There was little the team had done before. They had hardly met.] Then the possible influence have had to be in talks with the two experts. I see that it is relevant, even if it is a little out of my testimony
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Prosecutors Inga Bejer Engh is interested in how the onion understood that Breivik testified about the killing of Utøya, as he seemed unmoved in court of his own cruel actions. For the onion, it was almost like Breivik described the film as he told of the time on Utøya. - When I left the interview room, it struck me, what are we talking about now? onion said. Breivik never showed signs of sorrow or remorse in the questioning about the murder of Utøya. Right Psychiatrist Torgeir Husby onion asks why he use touching the "pragmatic" about the way Breivik behaved in questioning about the murder of Utøya. - Is there a word you're in for, or it may come from somewhere else? - If I've picked up along the way do you mean? I took me in when I said it, responds onion. Breivik In questioning consistently used the word "pragmatic" to describe both himself and killing the actions he has committed.
11:47
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [prosecutor Bejer Engh: - You mentioned questions from Yvonne Larsen how you looked at him. You said that when he told you what he did on Utøya, he was pragmatic. Then I wonder if you could elaborate on how he was when he explained these killings. When you sit, and he alone] It's not the case, it is always at least one defense counsel present. But for me, the elimination of the defender. I'm not sure if pragmatic is the right word, but the defendant wished to convey as much as possible, while I want to get out as much as possible. When he told about the events at Utøya we use cognitive techniques to recall what happened. He says without the use of feelings about what happened, who was in a descriptive way as a movie. My focus throughout is to understand what he says and process it, and what more can I get out of the action. The victims and the actions were practically for us both, object in a story. When the defendant does not use big words, but only describe as it was in a movie where I am I and. When I go out of the room so it strikes me, "what have we done now" and "what are we talking about now." - [Engh: - But is it right, he talks about this as if he was talking about something completely trivial everyday? As if he tells you about their summer holidays?] No, it is much more intense than that. It is clear that these are events that are difficult to talk about, even for defendants. He has specified, that specifically talking about the first murder is hard to talk about, because it was difficult to implement. So it is much more intense than a summer celebration, that is. - [prosecutor Engh: - Showing he at any time that he is upset over this?] No, not as we see from the expression. But we hear him say that it was difficult for him to complete the action. But we see no evidence of this. But my job is not to assess the body language, but what he says. [The prosecutor Engh: - Do you have something to say about kroppsspåkret through all these hours?] I have not thought about it before I get questions about it. So that means that it is very unusual. He seems calm. [Right Psychiatrist Huseby: - The word pragmatic, there is a description you are in for, or think you may have a different background?] That I may have picked it up from the interrogations? I will not rule. [Right Psychiatrist Huseby: - Would you use another word, if you'd like to?] I understand that word to describe things that are made in an efficient and tactically. It's right on Utøya. It is possible a philologist would debate with me about it. If the word was naturally in my vocabulary until I started talking about this, it is hard to say.
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
When Breivik is allowed to make any comments on Løken diploma, he sits at ease in his chair and smiles broadly to onion before he begins. - There are only a few minor comments, he says first.
11:51
Witness Geir-Egil Løken, police officer NCIS:
- [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: You said bomb the group was impressed. Can you elaborate on that?] Impressed, well, yes .. The purpose was to reveal whether he had done this alone, or if there was more. He gave evidence of how things were made, where the boiling point of the thing was, and the program how much he had the use of a thing. [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: But it was not that the bomb was so complex?] What was complicated was the trigger. It was a challenging piece of work, apparently. [Lay judge Ernst Henning Eielsen: An earlier witness said that the bomb was not complex, namely.] This is not my field of competence, so I do not think that I should say much more about. [Defense Geir Lippestad: So, Breivik few comments.] [Judge Wenche Arntzen Elisabeth: Yes, some pretty quick, then.]
Comment from Eva VG-Therese Grøttum:
Breivik comments above about the onion Hadeland killings, and would like to emphasize that he believed drapsmenne militant nationalists. He speaks with a lower and milder voice than when he commented Morland testimony earlier today. Breivik also points out that the onion was right is in Breivik comment that used the word "expropriate" error. - It is wrong, the right word is the requisition. I make mistakes too, and I'm not afraid to admit it, he said. It's lunch time at 12:35. It's a tight schedule today, and Arntzen maintains that the court must be raised no later than 16:30. After lunch the three expert witnesses to talk about right-wing ideology, and all the witnesses sent by VGTV.
Anders Breivik Behring:
- You mentioned "Laser Man", as I have said is that there is an assumption that he is a militant nationalist based on information available, and not an assertion. In the case, ie, the statement that there should be 15,000 militant nationalists in Norway, I specified that it is 15,000 which is likely to be militant nationalists. But I have not said that people are ready with weapons. It is also true figure for the European 300,000. There are also individuals who are inclined to be militant extremists. The uniform of course I thought at first was totally unimportant in the grand sammehengen, but still important. - And rightly so specific, I do mistakes like everyone else, and that word, the use of "expropriation", it's wrong then. So I make the mistake and I, like everyone else. And I'm not afraid to admit it. [No more questions. Onions are done. Judge Arntzen prepare for the lunch break, and states that the court today has an absolute deadline at 16:30. She says that if the defendant has further comments on the upcoming witnesses, they shall be collected at the end of the day.] [Judge Arntzen: - When the court takes a break to five over half of one. It is a three quarter hour lunch break, it would hold.]
11:58
VG:
- The court pauses until 12:35.
» » » » [VG]
No comments:
Post a Comment