a local man has been cleared of raping a 13year old, he was named, she wasnt

[MadEyeMisdee]

his name has been all over the papers. her name hasnt been given. apparently she falsley claimed to have been raped twice before.

i have no idea if any of these details are true, as wasnt there etc, only these two people know.

but why do they release the accused name? this guy has been cleared, but its always going to be there isnt it?

i'm not saying the girl should be named as well, afterall she is still a child. but, well, i dunno really. seems wrong.

People accused of crimes are always named - if you are found not guilty of, e.g., burgulary, your name has still been in the papers.

They shouldn't have relaesed the mans name really, they are not legfally allowed to release hers due to her age

for the poor bloke, but wonder what that kid must have gone through to have become like that

He was found not guilty?? I have been reading about it in the local paper, and I did wonder TBH.