The Guildford Four: A Case Study

On October 5, 1974, two bombs were placed outside two pubs in Guildford, England, which is located 30 miles away from the popular city of London. In this attack, four soldiers and one civilian tragically lost their lives, while also injuring over 50 people (Schoeller, 2013). These bombings caused fear amongst the city, which caused investigators to try to solve the case as quickly and as accurately as possible. But unfortunately, it did not happen that way. The Guildford Four, which consisted of Paull Hill,21, Gerard Conlon,21, Patrick Armstrong, 25, and Carole Richardson, a 17-year-old English girl who was dating Armstrong, were accused and given life sentences as the cause of the bombings of the two pubs in Guildford. Aside from being
The three male members had to endure horrible tortures at the hand of the British authorities. According to their accounts, they were subjected to physical abuse and frequent body searches, they were deprived of food and sleep as well as having to stand for long periods of time. The authorities also threatened to hurt the suspect’s family and people close to them if they did not confess, forcing them to sign the confession (Schoeller, 2013)
The first to be arrested was Paul Hill. After being interrogated for 24 hours, he signed a confession and implicated his friend Gerry Conlon. Conlon was then arrested and after being interrogated for two days, he implicated many people, including Paddy Armstrong and Carole Richardson. Carole Richardson signed the confession quicker as she was under the influence of drugs she had taken previously that day (Lutz, et al., 2002) After confessing to the Guildford bombings, Hill and Armstrong we also charged with the Woolwich bombing, which killed two people (Gudjonsson,
This legislation gave the authorities the power to arrest and investigate the suspects, as they were supposedly involved with the IRA. The IRA’s involvement, in this case, brought doubt into this act as a result of the treatment brought to the suspects.( Lutz, et al., 2002). There was not enough evidence to convict these four individuals, but the pressure to catch the culprit, made this case get out of proportion, just as how it was with the West Memphis 3.
The investigators involved in the interrogation process were accused of tampering with the Guildford four confession statement. The statements had very specific details that had been known by the police before the interrogation, such as details about the making of the bomb, and the layout of where the bombings occurred. However, on the pieces information, that the police were not aware off, such as: who drove the car to the bombing location, or what the bomb actually looked like, were inconsistent with each other (Schoeller,