No, it's not correct. You have insufficient information with which to render an "individual or specified judgement or outlook" on this matter. What you've done is provide your guesswork as if it's based on meaningful information. You have no data supporting your claim that Murdock's head trauma caused his erratic comments on Twitter. I don't believe it's even known whether he had meaningful head trauma.

This isn't pedantry. You are basically lying. What you've done is present one of many possible explanations as if it is the correct one, despite having no data to back your claim. This is like claiming that a rogue Chipotle employee intentionally introduced e. coli into their food supply. This is a possible explanation, but it's just wild conjecture. Presenting it as "your understanding" would be to present it as if it were a factual claim.