man found innocent after false rape claim put him in prison for 6 years

Wow, most of the people who have responded in this thread make me sick. What a waste of perfectly good oxygen, most of you are.

Proof that A did not rape B =/= proof that B lied, you imbeciles.

and statements about actual rape should not be used to excuse this girls behaviour or distract from the issue of the injustice committed against men. Hes lost lost his family and may have been subject to humilation by tests, being arrested and having his name next to the word rapist because of her lie. This is main way false accusers get off apperatly saying it may harm real victims but she lied and distroyed a mans life so should he not be considered her victim as well and have her face punishments.

proof B lied is the DNA says that he couldnt have had sex with her (seems solid to me)

Don't be ridiculous. A woman who claims to have been raped should always be treated with sensitivity and kindness, regardless of whether it the truth is immediately verified. Rape is a brutal and hideous crime and one which is hugely traumatic. Treating a woman claiming rape in such a way does not mean any injustice is being committed against a potentially innocent man, but ensures that women are not disencouraged from reporting an abhorrent crime.

I also don't get how they found him guilty in the first place, with DNA evidence of other males and no history they seem to have taken her word for it. The lesson to be learnt from the British legal system today is if you see a drunk girl in the gutter, leave her there.. joke

Nothing new. Happened with Stefan Kiszko who had a disease that meant he wasn't physically able to rape his alleged victim. Unfortunately for him and his defence counsel, the prosecution knew this but were not obliged to hand over this crucial evidence to the defence. The rules on this have since changed and I have yet to find out who were the sad bastards who put him in jail. We still don't know who she is and even the Guardian stated her identity should be revealed.

I'm confused, are you talking about the Kiszko case, or the one in the OP?

Kiszko.

Nothing new. Happened with Stefan Kiszko who had a disease that meant he wasn't physically able to rape his alleged victim. Unfortunately for him and his defence counsel, the prosecution knew this but were not obliged to hand over this crucial evidence to the defence. The rules on this have since changed and I have yet to find out who were the sad bastards who put him in jail. We still don't know who she is and even the Guardian stated her identity should be revealed.

http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/stefankiszko/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7062395.stm

Are you getting mixed up with something else? Kiszko was convicted of murdering an 11yr old girl called Lesley Molseed. Another man, Ronald Castree, has now been found guilty of her murder. This wasn't a case of a girl falsely accusing a man of rape; the police found Kiszko and decided he was the man. (As, apparently, did his defence team who decided to try to prove diminished responsibility rather than innocence.) There was semen found on her underwear which contained heads of sperm which Kiszko was incapable of producing. Castree's DNA was a perfect match which is how he was caught, 30 years later. As I understand it though, someone, presumably the killer, ejaculated on her underwear but didn't rape her.