You're listening to continuing coverage in the suitcase murder, the trial of Sarah Boone,

from the Hidden Killers podcast and True Crime Today. Now back to the courtroom.

But trauma is in the eye of the beholder. Is that fair?

Whether a negative experience traumatizes somebody is going to be in the eye of the person who experienced that stimuli, correct?

I only partially agree with you as a complicated answer because some of the manifestations of trauma are behavioral.

So, for instance, when I evaluate veterans who have returned and they may not know that they've

been traumatized, their bodily responses that include difficulty concentrating, they can't

sleep, they're hypervigilant, the PTSD diagnosis encompasses outward manifestations.

So even though they don't acknowledge trauma, you can still identify it as a clinician.

But still, somebody like a homicide detective or a homicide prosecutor can go to scenes where there are dead bodies,

go to autopsies where there are dead bodies, and not walk away with any trauma, correct?

Whereas somebody else might.

Right. The environmental, I guess, cues for that person and also working with law enforcement,

they become seasoned to micro traumas.

So almost every police officer can remember their first dead body they've seen.

So it's in their memory.

And then they become accustomed to seeing gruesome scenes.

They have increased tolerance over time because it's part of their job.

It may not be part of their intimate relationship that they have with someone else.

Now you brought up veterans.

Is something common with PTSD with veterans, something like firecrackers may set them off because it reminds them of acts of war?

That's right.

...