I've seen and heard a lot of reaction to the Millegeville, Ga., prosecutor's choice of words when describing the events surrounding what happened with Ben Roethlisberger in that town last month.
Much of it has been negative, which is pretty much what I believe the DA was going for when he described what he had on the case.
As some have pointed out, they've seen people convicted of crimes on far less evidence than what District Attorney Fred Bright presented on Monday when he announced he would not press charges against Roethlisberger.
What people have to remember is that prosecutors get paid to make the accused sound guilty. It's part of their job to sell a jury on it even if they don't have solid evidence.
By the same token, defense attorneys are paid to make their clients look as innocent as possible and poke holes in the DA's case.
In this case, I think Bright fully intended to paint Ben in a bad light, even though he didn't have enough evidence to convict.
I believe there's a lot more to this story than Bright is letting on. In fact, I've heard that the alleged victim gave inconsistent statements as to what actually happened in the restroom, which in itself would likely be a dealbreaker for Bright.
As for the people who say that Roethlisberger paid the young lady off and that's why Bright didn't push forward, I'm not buying that. Bright could have gone forward with charges even without the young lady's desire to do so. He just needed a strong case. And he apparently didn't have one.