Jim, there is nothing WRONG with your describing a case you saw at least ten years ago. Its just disappointing, thats all. I had understood that the idea was that participants would reflect on aspects of the case which you could reflect upon on the basis of your detailed knowledge of the person you were helping. I was silly enough to assume that this was a current case that was "unfolding". I now realise that it is most unlikely that you would be able to clarify specific issues from your knowledge of Gary, hence the way in which you appeared to be disregarding the discussion points raised. We are poring over a fossil.
It also explain the "old fashioned" way in which the case started, and the very prescriptive feel of what followed. My mistake, my apology.