I, personally, have not seen enough skulls with a gunshot wound in my life to make difference between a gunshot hole, a hole cause by a sharp object or even a hole that has occurred post mortem. Especially as there was also other damage. I mean it is possible he collected more skulls than one and had plenty of comparison, but I would not bet on it.That makes me wonder if it was really an obvious gunshot wound. In other words, is there any room to wonder if the person who kept it just thought that it’d been damaged in some other way.
Additionally, if you find a skull with any wound in the 1930s (as a teenage boy), I have a feeling you are gonna be way less creeped about it than people nowadays are."Oh, an old Indian/cowboy/soldier skull". It's not like he had reasons to assume it was of a teenage girl.
All MOO.