By no means contraindicating your (harmless) micro-apophenia, but "Orwell >>> Galois >>> we" in terms of gambling nous, might explain the difficulty of modelling their emotional states or purchases (ie of insurance for theories of uncertain import)
Indeed, although I think in Petsinis' case it was just a moment of inattention (bonus Homer). Given that I read very few XIX autopsy reports, it's completely unclear to me if they're giving a standard report or drawing attention to something. (it's even unclear to me why they should have been paying so much attention to the cranium when the problem clearly lay in the abdomen? early phrenology?)
(do they describe him as having had a normally small cerebellum, or abnormally?)