For a minute, it seemed that the aftermath of the Louvre heist would continue in the cinematic vein of the initial robbery. On a Sunday morning earlier this month, a team of four — two robbers and their accomplices — made off with priceless jewels from arguably Europe’s most iconic museum. Comparisons to Hollywood caper movies, predictably, flooded the internet after the audacious daylight robbery. But the internet was hungry for more drama. Last week, a photo taken during the investigation went viral: Surrounded by uniformed policemen was the most dapper of “detectives”. He wore a three-piece suit (with a gold waistcoat) and a fetching fedora. And, like all gentlemen, he carried an umbrella.
As it turns out, the investigation does not have a Hercule Poirot-like detective. The photographer responsible for the image confirmed that the man was just a bystander. The obsession with the “detective”, though, points to something deeper in the stories people tell – and make up. A high-profile crime in Europe, decades worth of crime fiction have taught people, demands an investigator with style, brilliance and a little arrogance. But, as with so much else, narrative causality didn’t quite play out in real life. In fact, the dapper man — a la Poirot, Jacques Clouseau, Albert Campion, et al — doesn’t even quite fit the story of the Louvre heist.
