tweets. First, if the account in The Washington Post is accurate regarding the forensic evidence, there would likely be legitimate grounds for the police office to have acted in self-defense (actual and/or perceived threat of imminent risk to the officer's life or of serious harm). Given the selective nature of the leaks and earlier conflicts in witness statements, some degree of uncertainty exists, but it probably is more likely than not that the police officer will not be indicted. Second, the newspaper story cited also mentioned that the Grand Jury's verdict was to be expected sometime "next month" (November), so again the expected timing isn't really new. What about after November 4? November 1 and 2 fall on the weekend, so no Grand Jury decision is likely then. That leaves 28 days for November and 26 (93%) fall after November 4. Therefore, there is a very high probability that the decision would be released after November 4. In sum, there doesn't appear to be anything really new or significant in the tweets that had not been expected prior to the tweets. If anything, the tweets seem to reflect prevailing expectations given the recently leaked evidence and the probability regarding the timing of the Grand Jury's decision.