3. As has been said before, your claims of over representation stem from skewed statistics which no genuine mathematician would adduce as even indicating, much less proving a conclusion.

I dispute that Don.
There are hundreds of victims who say BPs were the perpetratores.
I have heard of none saying otherwise.

So? Your argument does not address what Don said.

4. Even were the statistics more solidly based, any over representation cannot possibly support your "cultural effect" theory.

Agreed.
Any theory should seek to explain the over-rep, not the other way round.
That theory does do that.

But the theory indicates the over rep- should exist elsewhere but it doesn't. I don't know why this is so difficult...

Let's say I made 6 cups of tea, putting sugar in the 3 blue cups and none in the 3 red cups.

Someone could come up with a theory that tea is sweet because it is in a blue cup. After all the theory does work for the small sample.

Now lets say I make another 6 cups, this time round putting the sugar in the 3 red cups.

Would you still be saying the theory is right because it still works for the original sample or would you stop and think "hang on, this theory is not working for the larger sample. Perhaps the tea is sweet in certain cups for another reason?"