KC's Anniversary Reaction

[gamom]

Honestly, I think KC might be so busy eating chips while reading "how to appy make-up" magazines that she might not even remember it is the anniversary until after the fact. But I surely hopes she remembers it and that it is the only thing she can think about; not just that day but every day that she is alive. So many of us here who have never met her love Caylee more than her mother ever did.

While this may be true, the subconscious mind WILL remember which is why she would be having nightmares.

 

[Pollywog]

I really hope evil KC has nightmares for the rest of her life. I hope she sees Caylee in her sleep and remembers what she did to her with every waking hour. This woman deserves no peace at anytime for the rest of her life. She is not insane - just plain evil.

 

[cecybeans]

Though The Telltale Heart does remain a favorite in American literature, I'd like to think we still probably owe our greatest debt to the phenomenon with Shakespeare's character Lady Macbeth and her somnambulistic drama and hand-washing scene. She has interpreted in a variety of ways (depending on the tenor of the times regarding females), from a cold, calculating and aging opportunist who is, on some level, eventually unable to reconcile her greed and ambition with the deeds she has both encouraged and participated in, to Roman Polanski's version of the 60's in which she seems more like the naive young wife of a corporate raider who simply does not consider the long term psychic consequences of having to provide the pragmatic follow through in the inevitable aftermath of her husband's hubristic ambition. However, even the doctor Macbeth arranges to treat his wife admits he is unable to successfully in that she is not truly sick but "troubled with thick coming fancies" of memories she has of past dire deeds. When asked to cure her, the doctor tells Macbeth he cannot and "therein the patient/must administer to himself". It's probably one of the earliest examples of guilt on the psyche, even if all his works on the futulity of cheating or avoiding guilt borrow heavily from even earlier classics, like Oedipus, Perseus, Agamemnon, etc..

It strikes me that this is a thread in which we cannot help but use this as a lens to see the world through our own vision and experience. For one thing, none of us know exactly what kind of mental state or professional diagnosis one could pronounce on KC although we all certainly have our favorites. Even the professionals tend to disagree about what medical diagnosis may be accurate or appropriate (and I'm sure there will be lively debate on that at trial if it becomes a salient strategem). To complicate matters, there is even further academic debate amongst professionals as to the presentation, treatment, extent, etc. within a single consensus of ailment or condition. And I'm sure that, there is even room for variables about the reactions of more than one sociopath (should that be the agreed upon term) to the same or similar set of circumstances. Certainly PTSD is a mystery in that some people suffer from it terribly and in a debilitating way and others are able to cope or heal even when they are both subjected to the same traumatic impetus.

What mucks this up even further for us is that we are not dealing with a subject in vitro, but someone who is part of a strange and dysfunctional emotional ecosystem of a family. Someone who is being tried for a crime and who is very secretive, subjective and dishonest about her behavior - as are most of the people who are close enough to her to give any kind of useful anecdotal reports to help us form our opinions.

And then our own interpretation of any given behavior varies so widely it has taken hours of contemplation and rumination. Just the jailhouse reaction as an example. Her reaction can plausibly fit any number of interpretations, from guilt to surprise to lack of affect to faked affect, ad infinitum ad nauseum.

I find all of our interpretations thoughtful, revealing and interesting (and suspect they may also change with our own perspectives and moods), more about ourselves and our own frames of reference perhaps. However, even if we are likely to capture a genuine glimpse of an actual "anniversary event", how that may or may not play out in the trial - which will be conducted by attorneys who have a very strict interpretation of what is either admissable or germaine, is still very much up for grabs and is likely to be vigorously debated by both sides.

One thing seems to be certain, if unfortunate. Regardless of how we would like to vicariously observe her behavior and use it to help us justify or understand what we believe she is going through (or not) mentally, it is very unlikely to have any impact on this trial other than during a penalty phase and that is in the hands of the attorneys who can manage to persuade the jury that her behavior - if it indeed comes down to an "anniversary reaction" this is part and parcel of should be interpreted sympathtetically or not.

I think the prosecution will have no trouble reaching the criteria for sanity at the time of the crime from the fact that her behavior both before and afterward (however erratic) is organized and calculated enough to show she is capable of elaborate, premeditated cover up. If somehow the defense can cast her prior or subsquent behavior in a light designed to elicit sympathy (PPD, mitigating emotional circumstances) it may, at best, be a vehicle for getting the DP off the table, but I seriously doubt it will do anything to exonerate her and have her walk out of any courtroom an innocent or free woman.

 

[songline]

For such a defense to go forward, it would require that KC was "insane" (didn't know right from wrong, therefore unable to recognize that a crime was a wrongful act )
at the time of the commission of the crime. So she can "act" crazy now all she wants, if indeed she is acting, but this doesn't necessarily imply a recurrence
of insanity, rather it could be only a first time decompensation into psychosis.

Yes I see a damaged child.
No I do not think she does not know right from wrong, she did plenty of lying and hiding. so she does know.
Emotional Damage that causes a person to not have a full range of feelings is damage too.
but for a temporary insanity, they have observed her from the start, and would know when a drastic change happens with her. and she has to agree.
Watching her entire family has already made many come to the conclusion that there is some severe damage with that girl, and understandably why.
It would take an awesome attorney and her willingness to go for temporary insanity.
I still think it is a chance.
I am afraid that she will never talk and never take that plea, and I am afraid that CAYLEE may not have justice.

(I knew a young woman who was caught with a huge amount of coke straped on her, this was an interstate case. She got out of jail after a year and half, ACTING and telling stories.
So I will never say it wont happen, it can happen)
what I will say is the "A"s (all of them) are all bad liars and con artists, and transparent too.
So I do not think any more BS will work. Thank God.

 

[songline]

Though The Telltale Heart does remain a favorite in American literature, I'd like to think we still probably owe our greatest debt to the phenomenon with Shakespeare's character Lady Macbeth and her somnambulistic drama and hand-washing scene. She has interpreted in a variety of ways (depending on the tenor of the times regarding females), from a cold, calculating and aging opportunist who is, on some level, eventually unable to reconcile her greed and ambition with the deeds she has both encouraged and participated in, to Roman Polanski's version of the 60's in which she seems more like the naive young wife of a corporate raider who simply does not consider the long term psychic consequences of having to provide the pragmatic follow through in the inevitable aftermath of her husband's hubristic ambition. However, even the doctor Macbeth arranges to treat his wife admits he is unable to successfully in that she is not truly sick but "troubled with thick coming fancies" of memories she has of past dire deeds. When asked to cure her, the doctor tells Macbeth he cannot and "therein the patient/must administer to himself". It's probably one of the earliest examples of guilt on the psyche, even if all his works on the futulity of cheating or avoiding guilt borrow heavily from even earlier classics, like Oedipus, Perseus, Agamemnon, etc..

It strikes me that this is a thread in which we cannot help but use this as a lens to see the world through our own vision and experience. For one thing, none of us know exactly what kind of mental state or professional diagnosis one could pronounce on KC although we all certainly have our favorites. Even the professionals tend to disagree about what medical diagnosis may be accurate or appropriate (and I'm sure there will be lively debate on that at trial if it becomes a salient strategem). To complicate matters, there is even further academic debate amongst professionals as to the presentation, treatment, extent, etc. within a single consensus of ailment or condition. And I'm sure that, there is even room for variables about the reactions of more than one sociopath (should that be the agreed upon term) to the same or similar set of circumstances. Certainly PTSD is a mystery in that some people suffer from it terribly and in a debilitating way and others are able to cope or heal even when they are both subjected to the same traumatic impetus.

What mucks this up even further for us is that we are not dealing with a subject in vitro, but someone who is part of a strange and dysfunctional emotional ecosystem of a family. Someone who is being tried for a crime and who is very secretive, subjective and dishonest about her behavior - as are most of the people who are close enough to her to give any kind of useful anecdotal reports to help us form our opinions.

And then our own interpretation of any given behavior varies so widely it has taken hours of contemplation and rumination. Just the jailhouse reaction as an example. Her reaction can plausibly fit any number of interpretations, from guilt to surprise to lack of affect to faked affect, ad infinitum ad nauseum.

I find all of our interpretations thoughtful, revealing and interesting (and suspect they may also change with our own perspectives and moods), more about ourselves and our own frames of reference perhaps. However, even if we are likely to capture a genuine glimpse of an actual "anniversary event", how that may or may not play out in the trial - which will be conducted by attorneys who have a very strict interpretation of what is either admissable or germaine, is still very much up for grabs and is likely to be vigorously debated by both sides.

One thing seems to be certain, if unfortunate. Regardless of how we would like to vicariously observe her behavior and use it to help us justify or understand what we believe she is going through (or not) mentally, it is very unlikely to have any impact on this trial other than during a penalty phase and that is in the hands of the attorneys who can manage to persuade the jury that her behavior - if it indeed comes down to an "anniversary reaction" this is part and parcel of should be interpreted sympathtetically or not.

I think the prosecution will have no trouble reaching the criteria for sanity at the time of the crime from the fact that her behavior both before and afterward (however erratic) is organized and calculated enough to show she is capable of elaborate, premeditated cover up. If somehow the defense can cast her prior or subsquent behavior in a light designed to elicit sympathy (PPD, mitigating emotional circumstances) it may, at best, be a vehicle for getting the DP off the table, but I seriously doubt it will do anything to exonerate her and have her walk out of any courtroom an innocent or free woman.

IMHO This is the post of the week. :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[songline]

ITA. She doesn't need to "play the crazy game" to get a trial delay when all that's required is AL marching into court with a motion.

Also, playing crazy now doesn't help with a crime committed a year ago when, according to most observers, she was not crazy.

It took them 25 years to diagnose My daughter with bipolar.
She only went to therapy to get a good mark so she lied all the time, it took a number of fiasco's for them to get it.

SO the fact that most observers did not catch that she is off the wall I KNOW THAT CINDY DID.
I know that in my heart, because I used to beg Doctors that something is off and it is not just an attitude, or other behavioural issues. I SAW IT 16 years before it was diagnosed by a number of Doctors. Finally it was diagnosed. So yes even professionals can definitely miss on a diagnosis.

But mothers know and Cindy knew, it probably was not easy for CA to control KC, or maybe she used too much negative control, and just maybe KC un-nerved CA with many issues.
But KC did go to an old friend and told her she felt crazy a year before this all happened, and then when her friend followed up, KC said she is better and dismissed it. IT is on record.
KC and the rest of the "A"s did not just wake up one day crazy....no...it has been a family pattern for so long that they all thought each other is normal. :crazy:

 

[Verité]

Yes I see a damaged child.
No I do not think she does not know right from wrong, she did plenty of lying and hiding. so she does know. . . .

I am afraid that she will never talk and never take that plea, and I am afraid that CAYLEE may not have justice. . . .

. . . .what I will say is they are all bad liars and con artists, and transparent
too. So I do not think any more BS will work. Thank God.

Excellent point you make, songline, in the first sentence above re KC's ability to know right from wrong. She even admitted that to LE when she
stopped in her tracks to tell them that she didn't work at Universal. I, too, believe she may have swallowed the "m" word (mum) for life, so that we'll
never hear the truth of Caylee's demise from her mouth. If she were to begin to disclose, that's when I think she'd "implode" due to the sheer
horror of the re-living and re-experiencing.

By the way, for all those who are wed to a view of KC as "sociopathic," an anniversary reaction (which is a stress-related condition) is not incompatible
with such a diagnosis. In fact, the diagnosis Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder originated with the observation of that condition in returning Viet Nam vets,
then later was extended in the psychiatric nomenclature to include persons experiencing traumatic events beyond the realm of usual human experience.
In that huge study on VN vets, among those with a diagnosis of PTSD, 30% also had a diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder (sociopathy). So, there
is a precedent for comorbidity.

Re your last statement, I try never to say the "b" word (bad) because it's too often used punitively, but I will say instead that "they are all good liars. . . ."

 

[Bobbisangel]

Even with Caylee having "gone missing" on 6/16 the anniversary effect could still be in play ... it's getting very close to that date.

A therapist that I know well said that a month before the date of the death the body has a biological clock that starts to tick and reminds you that the dreaded date is coming. I totally agree with that as it happens to me every year the month of my daughter's death and the month that my mom died. I become emotional and sometimes cranky and can't figure what is wrong with me until I remember what month it is. I've never had nightmares though...thank God.

 

[Verité]

Bobbisangel, So Sorry about your daughter's death, as well as for the loss of your mom. I, too, have a repertoire of multiple grief experiences with a significant male in my family dying ever six months throughout two of the four years that I was in a very demanding academic program: two from fatal accidents, and two suddenly
from unexpected illnesses. Rough! Your reaction sounds totally consistent with what I've experienced and what I know from the literature on anniversary reactions.

 

[Verité]

Though The Telltale Heart does remain a favorite in American literature, I'd like to think we still probably owe our greatest debt to the phenomenon with Shakespeare's character Lady Macbeth and her somnambulistic drama and hand-washing scene. She has interpreted in a variety of ways (depending on the tenor of the times regarding females), from a cold, calculating and aging opportunist who is, on some level, eventually unable to reconcile her greed and ambition with the deeds she has both encouraged and participated in, to Roman Polanski's version of the 60's in which she seems more like the naive young wife of a corporate raider who simply does not consider the long term psychic consequences of having to provide the pragmatic follow through in the inevitable aftermath of her husband's hubristic ambition. However, even the doctor Macbeth arranges to treat his wife admits he is unable to successfully in that she is not truly sick but "troubled with thick coming fancies" of memories she has of past dire deeds. When asked to cure her, the doctor tells Macbeth he cannot and "therein the patient/must administer to himself". It's probably one of the earliest examples of guilt on the psyche, even if all his works on the futulity of cheating or avoiding guilt borrow heavily from even earlier classics, like Oedipus, Perseus, Agamemnon, etc.. . .

To do honor to your long post (you should publish it!), I'll have to respond to sections at a time. In psychiatric/psychology literature, the Lady MacBeth phenomenon
is known as an example of "obsessive compulsive disorder," a type of "neurosis" (versus psychotic or personality disordered condition) where the "idea in the mind,"
repressed in memory, was believed to induce mental suffering manifested by obsessive thinking and compulsive hand washing. That's classic Freud. As a matter of fact,
Freud was very familiar with "The Classics," and may have gained insight from Shakespeare to launch his then novel approach to understanding mental illness,
i.e. that an idea implanted in the mind can cause behavioral and physical symptoms. Coincidentally, Freud also was first in 1895 to describe the "anniversary reaction"
in the psychiatric literature. (He has case studies of both conditions in his writings.)

Today, OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) is a discrete diagnosis in the psychiatric nomenclature which may sometimes be alleviated by certain
forms of psychopharmacology. The condition is not usually triggered by time-cues, as in anniversary reactions, but is more enduring, e.g. hand washing
(which we still see today in affected persons) or other compulsive behaviors tend to occur frequently--as often as almost round-the-clock.

 

[Verité]

. . .One thing seems to be certain, if unfortunate. Regardless of how we would like to vicariously observe her behavior and use it to help us justify or understand what we believe she is going through (or not) mentally, it is very unlikely to have any impact on this trial other than during a penalty phase and that is in the hands of the attorneys who can manage to persuade the jury that her behavior - if it indeed comes down to an "anniversary reaction" this is part and parcel of should be interpreted sympathtetically or not. . . .

What?!! You mean the prosecution is not reading my WS post as I write, nor will they use this thread with all of our suppositions about the anniversary reaction
phenomenon to support or refute that "something" horrendous happened last year, commencing let's say around June 9 or 10, in the life of KC Anthony?
I'm just flabbergasted. :doh:

 

[Melanie]

Well...with the recent "report's" of KC screaming in her cell and crying out in her sleep, sounds like she's starting the Anniversary Reaction already.

Oh my gosh - I do believe that. She could be congering up images that led to that fateful day thru memories and nightmares. We can't say she's only going to remember on the 15/16th, because IMHO, she was already having issues prior to that (check kiting from Amy, boyfriend, what to do with Caylee). This all started long before 6/15.

I hope she's having nightmares every night - it just confirms what I already know - she's guilty and crazy as a loon. Though I know (IMHO) that she'd never get away with an insanity defense. No one in their right mind would buy it on the jury.

I can only sit and wait to see what she does on the 15th or 16th....and what kind of act she's gonna throw then.

Best,

Mel

 

[Ada]

If KC is screaming in her sleep, I doubt it has anything to do with the murder of Caylee but rather KC's own impending death.

I don't think she's screaming out 'Caylee'. She's screaming 'why me!'

 

[Verité]

If KC is screaming in her sleep, I doubt it has anything to do with the murder of Caylee but rather KC's own impending death.

I don't think she's screaming out 'Caylee'. She's screaming 'why me!'

What could we call that. . .an ASR? (Anticipatory Stress Reaction)

 

[essies]

The Prisoner (as Tuba would call her) has so many anniversaries to remember and deal with!
June-The murder of Caylee
The disposal of Caylee (which must have been as horrific as her murder)
The beginning of her life as a free, swinging partygirl
July -Busted (The end of her life as a partygirl)
Her first experience with people (LE) who call her out on her lies
Her first experience with a situation Mommy can't fix
Her first experience as a prisoner (but not her last)
Aug. -A brief taste of Home
An awakening that the rest of the world isn't as gullable as G&C&L
Oct. - Back to jail for the long haul
The end of home cookin'
Dec. - Caylee is found
Prisoner must now face her own mortality
Feb. - Caylee's memorial and shout-out from brother Lee
The way it looks the Prisoner doesn't have much time during the year when she doesn't have some milestone to deal with-and that's just fine with me!:furious:

 

[cecybeans]

To do honor to your long post (you should publish it!), I'll have to respond to sections at a time. In psychiatric/psychology literature, the Lady MacBeth phenomenon
is known as an example of "obsessive compulsive disorder," a type of "neurosis" (versus psychotic or personality disordered condition) where the "idea in the mind,"
repressed in memory, was believed to induce mental suffering manifested by obsessive thinking and compulsive hand washing. That's classic Freud. As a matter of fact,
Freud was very familiar with "The Classics," and may have gained insight from Shakespeare to launch his then novel approach to understanding mental illness,
i.e. that an idea implanted in the mind can cause behavioral and physical symptoms. Coincidentally, Freud also was first in 1895 to describe the "anniversary reaction"
in the psychiatric literature. (He has case studies of both conditions in his writings.)

Today, OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) is a discrete diagnosis in the psychiatric nomenclature which may sometimes be alleviated by certain
forms of psychopharmacology. The condition is not usually triggered by time-cues, as in anniversary reactions, but is more enduring, e.g. hand washing
(which we still see today in affected persons) or other compulsive behaviors tend to occur frequently--as often as almost round-the-clock.

Thanks for your elaboration and elucidation of my thoughts. I probably communicated my original thought poorly. I realize that the Lady Macbeth disorder Shakespeare described has been reduced to an to an OCD "out damned spot" hand wringing episode, and that indeed became the iconic aspect of the sleepwalking scenes, even though they were initially about re-experiencing the actual events of the murders at a key or specific time. I don't believe they really describe the general DSM-IV OCD/GAD types of behavior we refer to today, that would also inhabit her conscious mind and dictate her waking behavior. IIRC, they started specifically in response to the time when her husband attained the same political rank as the one he murdered (hence my thought they were more "anniversary event" related). She had night sweats and relived the actual murders; the OCD aspect of washing off the imagined blood did not manifest itself in any waking behavior, only while she was asleep. I'm well aware of other classics (Elektra, Oedipal, etc) Freud used to describe phenomenon, which perhaps we have also reduced to a rather calcified and abbreviated interpretation of either his actual meaning or of the literary or mythological example itself. Heavens, anyone with an advanced education in those days was literate in them and they have served as handy examples for ages.(I'm sure your compendium of Freud quotes is much larger than mine, but didn't he say something to Jung near the end of his life about worrying that his legacy would be reduced to a kind of literal idolotry of sorts by future students of the mind?).

And of course, Freud was putting his own unique Victorian/post-Victorian spin on the subject of guilt (as was Poe) that was admittedly different than the original intention of shame-culture classical examples in which guilt is seen more as an inevitable visitation from outside forces than from inside an individual. I had no intention of debating the finer points of the phenomenon, just thought it was interesting that it has been part of our literary history for longer than we might give credit. And I thought it was simply a time-honored example of how guilt or trauma can bubble up in unintended ways due to various triggers, particularly those that might have to do with time or with another repetitive circumstance.

 

[cecybeans]

What?!! You mean the prosecution is not reading my WS post as I write, nor will they use this thread with all of our suppositions about the anniversary reaction
phenomenon to support or refute that "something" horrendous happened last year, commencing let's say around June 9 or 10, in the life of KC Anthony?
I'm just flabbergasted. :doh:

Oh not at all; I have no doubt they will, just as they will refer to her histrionics during the jailhouse tape on Dec 11 (and her lack of them on the JBP incident) as indicative of guilt. The unfortunate fact for us is that the defense can counter by simply saying yes or course something "horrendous" happened last year - Caylee was kidnapped and it made KC so distraught that AL noticed her crying and watching the video of Caylee on her laptop shortly thereafter, and then later reported her nightmares and sweats - her "reaction" to the trauma was already well-documented before any possible anniversary event could occur. The fact that it may have could play equally into both prosecution and defense strategy.

My only concern here is that, as in most legal situations, there is likely more than one way to interpret all of her behavior and it will either fall to the common sense of the jury or to the persuasive skills of both the experts and the summary skills the attorneys have of their testimony as to how these behaviorial events play into the final result.

 

[Verité]

. . .(I'm sure your compendium of Freud quotes is much larger than mine, but didn't he say something to Jung near the end of his life about worrying that his legacy would be reduced to a kind of literal idolotry of sorts by future students of the mind?). . . .

I don't claim to be a prolific Freud-quoter. In fact, I have only one: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," which I'll borrow to say, Sometimes Freud's contributions
are just what they are. Enormous. In fact, there would be no "talking" therapy were it not for Freud who "discovered" it, and we (especially women) would be
reduced to looking for a Mesmer or some other skilled hypnotist to free us of our "wandering uteruses" which were causing us all to be hysteric.
So, in a backwards sort of way, Freud did do something for women. And he was the first to do a case study of what he called an "anniversary reaction."

I don't know what Freud said about idolatry. I doubt that more than a smattering of the faithful take Freud literally today, though no one diminishes his genius.
There are numerous others who supplanted Freud and formed their own traditions to influence mental health treatment as currently practiced, which is quite
a departure from Freud's method.

It's my understanding that near the end of his life, Freud already had immigrated to London (to live with his daughter Anna in a charming house which I have visited).
By then, he and Jung were rivals and had long since stopped talking.

 

[Verité]

The Prisoner (as Tuba would call her) has so many anniversaries to remember and deal with!
June-The murder of Caylee
The disposal of Caylee (which must have been as horrific as her murder)
The beginning of her life as a free, swinging partygirl
July -Busted (The end of her life as a partygirl)
Her first experience with people (LE) who call her out on her lies
Her first experience with a situation Mommy can't fix
Her first experience as a prisoner (but not her last)
Aug. -A brief taste of Home
An awakening that the rest of the world isn't as gullable as G&C&L
Oct. - Back to jail for the long haul
The end of home cookin'
Dec. - Caylee is found
Prisoner must now face her own mortality
Feb. - Caylee's memorial and shout-out from brother Lee
The way it looks the Prisoner doesn't have much time during the year when she doesn't have some milestone to deal with-and that's just fine with me!:furious:

You are so right on! She's gonna be in the throes of a reaction for the rest of her natural life. . .and that's what she'll probably get. . . .now with her
famous DP attorney, it's bound play out > > > > PRISON for the rest of her natural life . . .without the possibility of parole. :boohoo:

 

[SoSueMe]

To do honor to your long post (you should publish it!), I'll have to respond to sections at a time. In psychiatric/psychology literature, the Lady MacBeth phenomenon
is known as an example of "obsessive compulsive disorder," a type of "neurosis" (versus psychotic or personality disordered condition) where the "idea in the mind,"
repressed in memory, was believed to induce mental suffering manifested by obsessive thinking and compulsive hand washing. That's classic Freud. As a matter of fact,
Freud was very familiar with "The Classics," and may have gained insight from Shakespeare to launch his then novel approach to understanding mental illness,
i.e. that an idea implanted in the mind can cause behavioral and physical symptoms. Coincidentally, Freud also was first in 1895 to describe the "anniversary reaction"
in the psychiatric literature. (He has case studies of both conditions in his writings.)

Today, OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) is a discrete diagnosis in the psychiatric nomenclature which may sometimes be alleviated by certain
forms of psychopharmacology. The condition is not usually triggered by time-cues, as in anniversary reactions, but is more enduring, e.g. hand washing
(which we still see today in affected persons) or other compulsive behaviors tend to occur frequently--as often as almost round-the-clock.

So what are you saying (English please)? OCD is not usually triggered by time cues or anniversary reactions, but what? Did I totally miss the boat here?

TIA