There are many articles you could read, here is one (second link) on whether or not it is accurate. Google 'Guildford Four'. The story behind this, is to me, heartbreaking. Read the book if you can.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four_and_Maguire_Seven

https://www.quora.com/How-historically-accurate-is-the-film-In-the-Name-of-the-Father-1993-about-the-Guildford-Four-in-Northern-Ireland

Gerry Conlon himself wrote a book about his experiences, which would be interesting to read but not sure if that's the one you meant?

The quora replies cover some of the things I had read about previously, e.g. the Emma Thompson character being a complete fabrication. Apparently the actual discovery of evidence against the Met was actually made by another police force - Avon and Somerset (not sure of the circumstances around this).

The robbery of the prostitute's flat didn't actually happen on the night of the bombing but was days later. Plus apparently one of the four did have IRA connections and had some involvement in a previous murder.

That's not to cast any doubt on their definite innocence as far as the bombings were concerned but I'm just not sure that so strongly frabricating key elements is fair / correct for someone looking at this as a historical piece and trying to work out the motivations behind the police's actions.

@Midi-chlorian_Count said:

Gerry Conlon himself wrote a book about his experiences, which would be interesting to read but not sure if that's the one you meant?

The quora replies cover some of the things I had read about previously, e.g. the Emma Thompson character being a complete fabrication. Apparently, the actual discovery of evidence against the Met was actually made by another police force - Avon and Somerset (not sure of the circumstances around this).

The robbery of the prostitute's flat didn't actually happen on the night of the bombing but was days later. Plus apparently, one of the four did have IRA connections and had some involvement in a previous murder.

That's not to cast any doubt on their definite innocence as far as the bombings were concerned but I'm just not sure that so strongly fabricating key elements is fair/correct for someone looking at this as a historical piece and trying to work out the motivations behind the police's actions.

Yes, I was referring to Conlon's book. I have a copy on my bookshelves, I haven't read it in years (I should give it a reread).

I followed 'the troubles' back in the day & the motivations of the police were pretty clear (at least to me).

I think their motivations (as per the film at least) was to stitch up and get some / any Irish people imprisoned for it as soon as possible.

I guess what I meant though was in reality there must have been some reason for choosing these specific guys, even if it was a stitch up. They would have needed something, hence my wondering if it would have been better served by showing one of them did have some dodgy links (even although that wasn't something that meant guilt in the Guilford case but I'm guessing that's the reality of why did go after them).

A crazy thing that I read was that they STILL don't know the real reason / evidence for the basis of their release! The film's "Don't Show this to defence" post-it note (or whatever it was) was just a fabrication for the sake of the film. They pretty recently blocked the release of the actual papers until 2080 or something like that! Unbelievable - someone clearly still being protected...