On the unlikely case that a part of what she said was true it is not a good thing to out a possible victim, even if she did commit a non-violent crime by falsely accusing those men.

You don't seem to have any actual reasons for the government to do it's business in secret, or any actual reasons to suppress evidence in an investigation.

When someone claims to be a victim, even if their story doesn't make any sense, the police should when possible investigate.

You can investigate while the names of the complainant and suspects are known. That's how it works for simple assault, murder, arson, and money laundering.

False accusers can't really do much after they have been shown to be lying.

They can if the fact that they are dangerous criminals is a secret. They can continue to choose their next victims from a much larger population.

The damage is done,

But justice isn't, and you don't seem to want any deterrence of other criminals.

but people, particularly those in positions of power become wary of trusting them

That's a good reason to treat them like criminals. False accusers undermine the credibility of real victims. By fully investigating and prosecuting false accusers, we reduce their numbers, and strengthen the credibility of real victims.

A bank robber that is free could very well attempt to rob another bank, so they are still a considerable threat to the peace and order of society.

A false accuser can make more false accusations, and is still a considerable threat to peace and order.

Once the both investigation and judiciary mess are over, then there is no reason for her name to be kept secret, but until then she should be protected.

This prevents people from coming forward who might have information relevant to the investigation, results in more innocent men being abused, and more guilty people going free.

This is particularly true for cases where one might be coerced into falsifying their story.

When the fuck did that ever happen?! You know cases where someone told a woman," make up a lie about being raped or I'll kill your family?" If this wild story is true, then we should make the names of ALL crime victims a secret. I might have been coerced into falsely reporting armed robbery! And why would it make any difference if one was coerced?

The thing about proper procedure is that even when everyone does their job right, someone or some case might still slip though the cracks and screw things up. That is the price we pay for other guarantees, such as a possible victim not being outed.

You still haven't given any actual reasons why victims shouldn't be outed. You just keep saying they shouldn't. But you don't describe any overwhelming negative consequences.

The system shouldn't care about the likelihood of anything she said being true sitting in the vicinity of one in a hundred billion.

I have no idea what this means.

You people remember when males were being attacked in their houses by their partners and being jailed when they called the police because it was considered unlikely that they would ever be victims of domestic violence right?

What does this have to do with keeping names secret and preventing a full investigation of rape complaints.

Until we have a final decision based on a comprehensive study of the facts outing any of the parts can have very bad results,

You don't say what those results are.

as evidenced over and over when someone is falsely accused of something that carries a stigma or when victims can be coerced or attacked.

Murder carries a stigma. Should we conduct secret murder investigation? People can be coerced into falsely reporting murder. Suspected murderers and witness can be attacked. We have never said this is a plausible reason for secret government proceedings.