It looks like that
farm attack report linked above was skewed to come to a certain conclusion (That both whites and blacks are equally the victims of farm attacks.):
In all the statistics, black labourers who were only peripherally involved and whose lives weren't at risk were included in the victim total to inflate the number of black victims and make it look as if whites weren't being targeted. It looks like the whites were the targets and any blacks who get in the way or try to protect their employers are killed or wounded out of neccessity.
I may have missed it but do they go into detail of why the murders and assaults of the white farm owners are as aggravated as they are? A perfect example is E.T.'s pants being pulled down. That is leaving an intentional message to farmers in the area.
It isn't really a conspiracy theory if the numbers are there in black and white. There is a clear racial bias in the murders and assaults.
If the motive is robbery why murder babies? I also like the fact that they aren't counted as victims.
This sort of heresay and conjecture is further proof that the people conducting the study were highly biased against the idea that racial motives were behind the attacks. Why include something like this if you cannot substantiate it?