For reasons already mentioned, it wouldn't make sense long-term.
You just want to compare the blood from the crime scene last week to the blood of a suspect today.
If it's a match, you do the full DNA test to prove it.
If it's wildly different, you got the wrong guy.
If it's close, you decide to do full DNA test based on whatever other evidence you have.
Yes, that makes sense and a data base wouldn’t be required.
You just want to compare the blood from the crime scene last week to the blood of a suspect today.
If it's a match, you do the full DNA test to prove it.
If it's wildly different, you got the wrong guy.
If it's close, you decide to do full DNA test based on whatever other evidence you have.
Sounds right to me. It won't prove guilt but it will prove - or at least very strongly suggest - innocence. Which is valuable in an investigation but not in a courtroom - unless somehow there are exactly two suspects, and one of them can be excluded by this test.Not that it is obvious that there would ever be a case where you could do the antibody test but couldn't possibly do the DNA test . . .