If some members of the family suspected but chose not to act on their suspicions — if the acceptance of Bourdin involved some element of willful blindness or deliberate choice — then the story is not simply one of a con man successfully deceiving innocent victims.

It is the story of a desperate family in a complex situation making choices that prioritized their need for hope over their commitment to truth.

If federal agents and social workers moved too slowly because the social reality established by the family’s acceptance made skepticism feel unkind — if the failure to expose Bourdin earlier was partly a failure of institutional culture rather than simply a failure of technology — then the story involves something about how institutions handle situations of grief and hope.

The “fooled everyone” narrative is satisfying because it places blame squarely on Bourdin and presents everyone else as victims of his superior cunning.