Suspicion does not necessarily result in Investigation.
Investigation does not necessarily result in Arrest.
Arrest does not necessarily result in Charge.
Charge does not necessarily result in Prosecution.
Prosecution does not necessarily result in Conviction.
The problem is that the average knee jerking Mail reader sees a name involved in the legal process and immediately presumes guilt. As it is, what people get is "guilt by association" regardless of anything else.
Case in point : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25625572
That poor sod's name (and indeed anyone involved in this latest Twattersphere saga) will forever be linked to the suspicion, courtesy of the interweb, with all the 'fun' that will bring them in later life, regardless of actual guilt and/or outcome.
There are a multitude of reasons (IMO) that both sides in a legal process should remain under cover of anonymity, with certain exceptions where public knowledge could result in further evidence coming forward. The flipside is that total anonymity could provide an avenue to secret courts, and that's not something I support.