I knew immediately that this was what I had come to find, but I read the paragraphs about the satin bridal gown and the three bridesmaids, and the groom’s sister who had flown from New Jersey to see him wed, before I turned to the story about my father.

His case was reported in some detail, although there was no photograph.

The Middlesex Quarter Sessions chairman, W. H. Gascoigne QC, had found Ted guilty of a ‘particularly low type of offence’. He was accused of obtaining the sum of £344 8s 8d by virtue of a forged receipt of purchase.

I read more quickly, with a prickling of discomfort at the nape of my neck that spread up and over my scalp like a too-tight cap.

Ted had undertaken to supply Messrs Bourne & Hollingsworth Ltd with an exclusive sample range of fine fragrances under the Scentsation trade name and he had presented his financial backer, a Mrs Caroline Ingoldby, with a receipt for the purchase of perfumery materials in connection with the manufacture of the said fragrances. She had advanced him the money in good faith, because she was an admirer of the accused’s perfumery products and believed that they might have a joint business future. The delivery date for the consignment of perfume had not been met, however, and when the store had insisted on receipt of the goods or cancellation of the contract, Thompson had applied to Mrs Ingoldby for further funds to solve ‘unforeseen production problems’. Mrs Ingoldby had become suspicious and had caused the original invoice to be examined. It had proved to be a forgery.

Thompson had claimed that he had some business debts and had ‘robbed Peter to pay Paul, as it were’. He had every intention, he said, of fulfilling the order to the department store and settling his financial shortfall from his share of the resulting profits. He pleaded guilty to the charge and expressed his sincere regret for the matter. Mr Gascoigne took the view that it was particularly reprehensible of the accused to have preyed upon a woman’s innocent trust. He therefore sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, also taking into account an earlier offence where Thompson had been found guilty of embezzling some funds from a previous employer and had been fined.

I read the article carefully, twice over, but there were no capillaries of ambiguity running through the Hendon & Finchley Times’s blocky prose.