The whole idea of shielding the identity of rape "victims," while publicizing the identity of the perpetrator, implies presumption of guilt. If the guy isn't guilty, then the victim isn't really a victim, and may very well be a false accuser guilty of a serious crime herself.
Yet the procedure is hardly ever questioned.
And don't get me started on the media and public attitude that the heinousness of a given crime somehow implies the guilt of the person accused.
While I don't particularly doubt that Timothy McVeigh was in significant measure responsible for detonating a large bomb outside the Murrah building, I do think he was railroaded. Despite repeated sustained objection, the prosecution kept on introducing testimony from people who had lost loved ones in the blast/collapse. To be sure, such testimony would be appropriate in the sentencing phase, but unless the defense is contesting the fact that people died the testimony of the decedents' loved ones has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Timothy McVeigh was responsible for the bombing. So what was the purpose of that testimony, if not to unjustly inflame the jury?