Back in the present, London’s witness interview continues. Jack asks if London can tell him anything specific about the robber’s appearance, such as if he was tall or short. London declares this a “superficial question” and says Jack has “a really sick binary view of gender,” and she refuses to say whether the robber was tall or short (describing people’s height can make people feel bad). She says her first impression of the robber was that they were a “complete moron.” The robber only wanted 6,500 kroner, and what robber does that? They clearly had a special reason to ask for that amount. Jack then shows her the child’s drawing, which she thinks depicts a frog, a monkey, and an elk. Then, she returns her attention to her phone—a celebrity couple is getting divorced.
London is oddly caught up in using descriptors that won’t make people feel bad for as rude as she’s being to Jack. Further, she doesn’t describe the robber in kind, glowing terms either: she implies they were in no way intelligent if they didn’t know the bank was cashless (and therefore impossible to rob). Then, the way London accuses Jack of having a “sick binary view of gender” is humorous, but there might be more to it. Either London is very up to date on current gender politics, or it’s possible Jack is wrong about the robber’s gender.