This is what I have been doing on the list all along as a help for the detectives to quickly run through. The assumption being that the person didn't die until 1990 - 1991ish, since that is how long the remains have been reported to be there. For instance, if the last time the 20 y/o person was seen in 1985 I have added 5-6 years to the age at the time of disappearance on the list and on the alpha list he is listed as "25ish". The detectives can then find out the actual details on the original post when they go to look up the info.
Does Mmarty know the ages on the list have been adjusted?
I'm wondering because he ruled out James Ezra Robinson based on age and time, but Robinson would have been 48 in 1992. If Mmarty thought the age of 48 on your list was at the time of disappearance, he might have thought Robinson would have been 58 in 1992.
This must have been what happened. I can't imagine Mmarty ruling out a 48 year old based on age and time. I can understand how it could happen because he's familiar with doing the age calculations in his head when he looks at the age and date of disappearance.
With the workload the detectives have, they may not have realized you changed the ages on the the alpha list and missed where you notated it. (I didn't myself.)
After all, the detectives were working off of the numeric list and doing calculations in their head in the beginning, and suddenly the alpha list has ages adjusted----it's possible they continued to do calculations in their head on the alpha list.
I just looked back this morning and I see on your latest alpha list it is notated on the top that the ages have been adjusted, but it's not notated on all of the all alpha lists you posted. The alpha list you posted on April 10th isn't notated like that. I think there might be some accidental confusion here.
I'm not criticizing your work at all. What you do is amazing. I'm just sharing there MAY be a problem with the ones ruled out based on age and time to ensure nobody slips through the cracks.
.