In May 1992, Ward's lawyers illustrated the fundamental flaws in the physical evidence presented at her trial before three Court of Appeal judges. Her barrister, Michael Mansfield, QC, contended there had been a "significant and substantial non-disclosure" of evidence and information which had strongly indicated her innocence, and that of the 63 interviews West Yorkshire Police had conducted with Ward before and after her confession, only 34 had been disclosed at trial. Furthermore, the court also heard that the handling of lacquers, boot polish and other commodities in common public use by any individual would produce the same positive results presented at Ward's trial as proof of their having handled—or come into contact with—explosive substances, as contended by Dr Skuse and others. This information was known to forensic experts in 1974, but had also never been disclosed at her original trial, or in the intervening years despite her protestations of innocence and subsequent developments with regards to other uncovered miscarriages of justice.