Psychiatrist says Le Priol's PTSD not a defense

The trial of Loïk Le Priol shifted dramatically yesterday when psychiatrist Isabelle Teillet delivered a forceful evaluation portraying him as a violent individual whose post-traumatic stress disorder, though genuine, fails to justify his actions. In stark contrast to earlier medical assessments, she rejected the idea that his PTSD could explain the 2022 murder of Federico Martín Aramburú, labeling his reliance on the diagnosis as a calculated effort to avoid accountability.

Teillet’s testimony clashed sharply with previous expert opinions. While military doctors had diagnosed Le Priol with PTSD in 2015—following an assault in Djibouti—and later specialists confirmed its presence, she argued that his condition had been exaggerated for tactical purposes. “He pulls out this PTSD like a rabbit from a hat whenever it suits him,” she stated, emphasizing that his behavior on the night of the crime, drunk, armed, and pursuing two rugby players, was inconsistent with trauma responses. His actions, she insisted, reflected predatory intent rather than psychological distress.

Forensic Psychiatrist Affirms PTSD Validity

The court had already heard from Dr. Daniel Zagury, a forensic psychiatrist who confirmed Le Priol’s PTSD was “undeniable” and “clinically documented,” scoring 73 out of 85 on military evaluations. Zagury acknowledged that the disorder may have slightly impaired Le Priol’s judgment during the shooting but did not absolve him of responsibility. “It doesn’t disappear,” he warned. “It can recede, but it can resurface in extreme circumstances, such as that night.”

Teillet dismissed these findings outright. She accused Zagury of relying on outdated military records and ignored Le Priol’s long history of aggression. “This isn’t PTSD; this is a man who’s always been violent,” she declared. She cited his school records, describing him as a bully in third grade, a habitual liar, and someone exhibiting “psychopathic tendencies.” His alcohol consumption that evening, she argued, had intensified his aggressive tendencies rather than stemmed from trauma.

Le Priol, seated in the dock, visibly paled as Teillet’s testimony unfolded. His defense team attempted to redirect the discussion toward professionalism, but she rejected their efforts with sharp dismissals. “I don’t understand what you’re asking, Counsel,” she snapped at one point, leaving no room for negotiation.

Judge Intervenes as Tensions Rise

The presiding judge, Éric Zientara, intervened to remind Teillet to maintain her usual professionalism, though his tone suggested amusement at her directness. “Keep being passionate,” he told her, though some jurors appeared unsettled by the exchange. Teillet’s most damaging claim was that Le Priol saw himself as a self-appointed avenger rather than a victim. “He’s not a traumatized soldier,” she stated flatly. “He’s a man who chases down rugby players when he’s drunk and armed. That’s not PTSD; that’s something far more deliberate.”

Her report had been partially redacted by the court last year, a rare move, due to its confrontational tone. Now, as she and her colleague Dr. Roland Coutanceau faced cross-examination, the tension in the courtroom remained thick. Coutanceau, more restrained than Teillet, suggested Le Priol’s actions were impulsive rather than ideologically driven. However, Teillet seized the opportunity to reinforce her position: “A war-traumatized man doesn’t go after rugby players in a bar. That’s not how trauma manifests.”

Jury Must Weigh PTSD Against Violence

The defense’s attempts to regain control failed. By the time the hearing adjourned, the jury’s decision hinged on whether they would accept that Le Priol’s PTSD, while real, was not the primary factor behind the murder, or if, as Teillet argued, it was merely a pretext for a lifetime of violent behavior.

Zagury had acknowledged Le Priol’s “asocial” tendencies and “psychopathic traits,” but Teillet framed them as deliberate performances. She referenced his 2019 conviction for assaulting former GUD leader Eric Klein, where a judge had noted his “refusal to accept responsibility” and “inflated sense of entitlement.” The court had then recognized a “mild impairment” in his judgment due to PTSD; but Teillet argued this was an incorrect assessment. “He doesn’t hesitate,” she said. “He enjoys the confrontation.” His tattoo of a dagger on his right arm, she added, was not a symbol of sacrifice but a “narcissistic display,” reinforcing his self-mythology as a warrior. Even his legal strategies, she observed, followed this pattern: retrospective justifications, selective memory, and a refusal to engage with criticism.