2006 and needed a break, and that he could save money that way whilst also preparing his manifesto. also he revealed he kept liquid finances in that house, as cash in a safe. breivik was also questioned about his year playing world of warcraft. he denies this could be linked with his actions. it was for him simply a game of "strategy" not "violence". he also testified that he played another computer game, call of duty: modern warfare 2, for 16 months as practice before using his actual rifle. he emphasised that he didn't really like playing but it was necessary to gain the required practical skills. breivik testified that the guns he used at utøya were inscribed with rune names. his rifle had the name gungnir, which is the name of odin's spear, which returns to its owner upon use. his glock pistol bore the name mjölnir, the name of thor the warrior god's hammer. in response to questioning about his motivations, breivik said that he had tried more peaceful methods to convey his ideology, and had been resisted by the press. he decided to use violent means. this would have involved targeting the actual labor party's conference, or a norwegian journalists' annual conference. in the event he had no time, neither to detonate more bombs. it was then that he claims to have conceded to an idea to launch the shooting spree on the island, and due to human limitations did not manage to shoot everyone there. the courtroom was visibly shaken and many people, including journalists, were weeping when breivik told that his goal at utøya had not been to kill 69 people, but to kill everybody. he wanted to frighten the youth there enough so that everybody would get into the water to escape. the water would then function as a weapon of mass destruction since, he reasoned, the people would be unable to swim out of fear. detailed planning was talked about. breivik's original plans involved three car bombs and shooting sprees across oslo, and breivik called it a "very large operation". breivik said he thought about placing a bomb near the labor party headquarters; the parliament of norway building; the aftenposten offices; oslo city hall; and the norwegian royal palace, though for the latter he claimed he would have forewarned the royals. the defendant explained how he hoped for the killings of all members of the norwegian government cabinet in his bombing, and how he also would have beheaded the former prime minister of norway, gro harlem brundtland, if things had gone to plan. he added that he envisaged handcuffing her and then beheading her using the bayonet on his rifle, whilst recording the killing on an iphone, and then posting it online. day 5 (20 april) in advocating his own sanity, breivik on this day asked the court to distinguish "clinical insanity" from what he alleged is his own "political extremism", and conceded that what he did caused huge suffering. breivik said how he potentially could comprehend the human suffering resulting from his actions but that he deliberately blocked this from his immediate consciousness to cope. the defendant went into great detail about his shooting spree on the island. the technicalities and level of description used was difficult for the victims' families and survivors to listen to. breivik claimed that he had hesitated and did not feel entirely at ease as he set out on his operation. he described how his victims reacted and said that it sometimes came as a surprise to him, saying that he had never seen for example on television how people in such circumstances might become effectively immobilised. breivik would find some of the teenagers lying on the ground pretending to be dead and he shot them too. breivik said that there are gaps in his memory of some of the 90 or so minutes he spent killing on the island. the defendant also said that he had considered wearing a swastika for the operation for its scaring effect but chose not to because he did not want to appear a nazi. breivik mentioned that he was ordinarily a nice person. he said that he very nearly backed out of doing the operation on the island, and whilst he was carrying it out, was in a state of what he described as shock, and he was just about functioning. he also claimed that there were a few people on the island whom he spared because he perceived them to be very young. day 6 (23 april) this had been scheduled to be breivik's last day of testimony, being a day longer than originally listed, but the prosecution had applied to the court for more time to cross-examine the defendant. breivik apologised for the deaths of "innocent" passers-by in oslo caught in the bombings; breivik did not apologise for deaths on the island, which he considered political. he has commented that what he did was "a small barbarian act to prevent a larger barbarian act". breivik wanted the court to believe that he himself had lost his family, friends, and "everything" on the day he carried out the attacks. he believed however that whoever was on the island was a "legitimate target" through being the "political activists" that sought the "deconstruction of norwegian society" using "multiculturalism". also he described what he did as being "cruel but necessary". breivik says he felt repulsion at what he was doing but at the same time a compulsion because he feels it would avoid something worse in future. the defendant alleged that he was the victim of a "racist plot" in the prosecution's efforts to find him legally insane, and his behaviour irrational. breivik argued that no "bearded jihadist" would have been subjected to investigations of sanity, and as a "militant nationalist" the prosecution were out to delegitimise his ideology. prosecution witnesses day 7 (24 april) the prosecution opened by calling their first witness, tor inge kristoffersen, a government security guard. this witness's job on the day of the attacks involved security monitoring, from the basement of government headquarters. the witness was asked to describe what he saw on the day; he had seen a car being parked, and then someone emerge wearing what "looked like a guard's uniform". just as krisoffersen was zooming in on that car's number plate, it exploded. about half of the screens used in the monitoring went blank. the security staff radio network also went down. bomb scientist svein olav christensen was then called to the stand. christensen led the investigation into the technical aspects of the bomb. his testimony included photos of the reconstructed bomb exploding as well as surveillance photos of the actual blast. then, oslo police sergeant thor langli took the stand. langli testified about the oslo police's actions in the immediate aftermath of the bombing. langli commented how at first there had been reports that there were two suspects behind the attacks. the next witnesses was forensics specialist ragde who talked about the findings on the crime scene in regjeringskvartalet, and coroners stray-pedersen and størseth, who presented the autopsy reports. day 8 (25 april) coroner's reports on the eight bombing victims were heard by the court, and described "immense violence" for all of them. the first bomb survivor to give evidence was 26-year-old eivind dahl thoresen. thoresen described how he had been talking on his mobile, when the bomb exploded. he had been standing only metres away, and was thrown backwards by the blast. thoresen saw another survivor just down the road, and began to approach him to assist, because he noticed he had horrific injuries. thoresen went on to say how he also was badly injured and heavily bleeding. vidar vestli also survived the blast, and his consequent condition had not allowed him to give live evidence. his witness statement was read to the court, where it was told how he had lost a leg in the blast, had a chest "full of shrapnel", and poor mental health. another survivor, tone maria with, claimed she is now too afraid to venture into central oslo. she recounted how amid the confusion of the bomb blast, she realised she had a hole in her chest and thought she was going to die. she also suffered hearing loss as a consequence. second testimony for the defence breivik took the stand for the second time to give evidence for the defence. he conceded that it had been hard to hear live evidence from witnesses for the prosecution but he also said that the labour government should apologise for their immigration policies. breivik spoke about his views on the respective psychiatric reports, the earlier deeming him insane and the latter saying he was not insane. breivik said that the report concluding his insanity was made of "evil fabrications" and insisted the ulterior motive behind such conclusions were "meant to portray him as irrational and unintelligent". breivik contested the damning psychiatric report and alleged that 80% of it was false. specifically his allegations were: the purported quoting of himself omitted pronouns e.g. "i" which according to the defendant was deliberately done to make him look "retarded"; it claimed he had a fear of radiation, which the defendant alleged is untrue as he has no such fear; the report alleged that breivik's mask which he wore during his attacks was intended as an attempted defence to bacteria, being an irrational fear of his, and breivik claimed this was untrue as it was meant for a different purpose, namely filtering particulates; breivik cites that none of his interviews featuring in the substance of the report were tape-recorded; he also alleged in general that the assessors started with a conclusion and worked back towards what they wanted to find. in questioning, breivik challenged the prosecution's view that he could not look after himself, and said he does cook and clean, and that he had been bearing up in prison well. day 9 (26 april) more survivors of the oslo bombings testified in court. harald føsker was one of them. he needed surgery on his face as a consequence of being caught in the blasts. føsker was employed at the ministry of justice at the time. he described how he was so badly injured that he did not feel the physical pain until the next day. his teeth were knocked out. he needed surgery to reconstruct his face, and also for his vision and hearing. another victim, female, testified that she could not remember the events of the day because she has suffered head trauma. at noon, 40,000 protesters met in oslo and marched to the courthouse singing a children's song which breivik had testified earlier was part of the brainwashing of norwegian children. similar protests were held in other cities. day 10 (27 april) tore raasok testified on the injuries he sustained as a result of the bombings. raasok worked for the ministry of transport in oslo, and on 22 july 2011 when he had been leaving the office he was caught in a blast. shards of glass had flown into his eyes and his legs had been crushed. since then he has had a leg amputated, undergone 10 surgical operations, and has lost use of one of his arms. another prosecution witness, kristian rasmussen, described how he had been in his office sending an email when "everything went black" and he went into a coma for 12 days. he sustained head injuries, bleeding on the brain, a broken neck, and abdominal wounds. day 17 (11 may) the presentation of autopsy reports was concluded on this day. an incident took place when a spectator shouted "go to hell, go to hell, you killed my brother", then threw a shoe towards breivik, but hit the defence attorney vibeke hein bæra. the incident initiated some spontaneous applause, while the thrower was taken out of the courtroom and handed over to medical personnel. the thrower was hayder mustafa qasim, an iraqi who was the brother of karar mustafa qasim, one of the victims who had been killed at utøya. shoe throwing is a mark of extreme contempt in arab culture, signifying that the target is worth no more than the dirt that one steps in. footage of the incident was not permitted to