That's got nothing to do with it. You were citing "white" vs. black statistics in the first place, so the "white" category is whatever it is, and represents some population that outnumbers blacks 8 to 1. You noted that b/w ( black perp, "white" victim ) assaults occurred with 8 times ( 15:2 ) the frequency as w/b, and then said that the "per capita ration" was 64 to 1 because "whites" outnumber blacks 8 to 1. This is false reasoning. As I pointed out, b/w and w/b assaults would be equal in number if "race" were uncorrelated with the likelihood of being a perp or a victim.
Furthermore, the comparison of b/w with w/b actually involves a complex combination of factors. Your figure of 64 to 1 is completely meaningless.
Just write or call they will send you the stats .
I should add that the comparison you ought to make is between w/w and b/w, which is 55:15 or 11:3, meaning 11 white victims are attacked by whites for every 3 white victims that are attacked by blacks. In this case, since the target population is constant, it's proper to correct for the greater number of potential white attackers and ( assuming attackers are men and victims are women ) say that a black man is 24/11 = 2.2 times as likely than a white man to attack a white woman. More than twice as likely! Quite shocking, but a far cry from 64.