For the Ludic fallacy to apply, you'd have to show that statistics on child abuse don't apply because the JBR case is a rare event that has some special cause not captured in the normal statistics, and therefore can't be predicted by game theory.
Either that or you have to be saying that no crime statistics apply, to this or any other case, because the stats can never sufficiently model all the variables of real life.
But of course, I'm not applying game theory. Nor am I concerned with probability of something yet to occur.
This crime has already happened.
We can say with certainty that the molestation was done by a man or a woman (or both). We can say with a certainty that it was done by a child or an adult (or both). I don't think I've oversimplified the possible perpetrator combinations - Human; male, female, adult, child.
We can look up statistics on abuse and see what % are committed by women, men, and children. Since we are not trying to predict the outcome of a future event, and there is, unfortunately, nothing very rare or special about child molestation, I don't see how the Ludic fallacy applies.
If you think there is some special feature of this case which makes molestation statistics, broken down for age and gender, inapplicable, it would be interesting if you'd specify.
It takes about 10 seconds to find stats on child abuse. Here's one site
http://www.apa.org/pi/families/resources/child-sexual-abuse.aspx
that suggests 23% of reported cases of child sexual abuse are committed by persons under 18.
So, if we get back to my statement, which you bolded in your response -
I think it's highly unlikely a prepubescent 9 year old sexually assaulted his sister. Possible, but not probable. - it would seem the statistics indicate it's less likely that the molestation was done by someone under 18 than someone over 18.
Perhaps it's the exact wording that you have a problem with? Perhaps instead of "highly unlikely" I should say that a prepubescent 9 year old is less likely the perp than an adult male.
Of course there are many many sites with statistics that need to be defined and analyzed. It's not clear that "molestation" is the same as "abuse". We could could further refine, if we could locate the data, for "sex crimes" that involve exposure as opposed to penetration of a victim. Often the two types of "molestation" are lumped together in crime statistics.
Unfortunately a lot of this is not broken down further.
Because stats are often defined in different ways it is difficult to pin down exact percentages and apply them. I've seen stats ranging from 4% to 33% for female offenders, with significant differences vis-a-vis male or female victims.
I have not seen breakdowns for various age groups under 18. I would strongly suspect that there is a lower % of molesters at each lower age level, though I can't say for sure without looking up many many more statistics.
I have assumed BR to be prepubescent, as he was 9 at the time. That could be wrong. Also puberty is not a requirement for sexual abuse.
So, since you and I agree (I think) that this is an RDI case, and RDI leaves us with exactly 3 suspects (individually or in any combination) I don't see the problem with saying that among the 3, the 9 year old is less likely to be our molester than the adult male.
It's also true that the adult female is statistically less likely the molester as compared to the adult male.
None of this is meant to suggest that BR is "ruled out", just that he's not the most likely molester.
