Well as far as the police are concerned it already has been compared to Charles Wallace. Back in 1975 when all you had was dentals and biological profiles he was a match....but according to his mother he wasn't. What could police do...they couldn't exactly force her to accept it was her son. I don't know how it works exactly but I assume if a positive ID by family is not made then you are bound to accept that. Hence I think why this young man remains unidentified.Ok, privacy is fine and must be respected, but doing so complicates things for the law enforcement; if law enforcement know he is Charles Wallace they would have already removed UID from the databases, but on the contrary, they inserted this UID recently, evidently either it's not Charles Wallace or they still have to compare it to him?
They're never gonna compare him to Charles Wallace since he was never reported missing it seems. Hopefully that can change soon.