So what? Your claim that it was a non-patch areas has been proved wrong.
The protocols of the samples to be taken from the Shroud required EIGHT SAMPLES from EIGHT different locations on the Shroud including samples that had image and samples that had no image. Your "peer reviewed facts that contradict that assertion" show that the protocol was VIOLATED. Instead of EIGHT SAMPLES from different areas of the Shroud, only ONE SAMPLE was taken and then divided among THREE labs instead of the SIX originally specified in the agreed protocols. That one, single sample was taken from an area that had been EXCLUDED from the protocols because of previous evidence that it was unsuitable. The agreed protocols were discarded at literally the last hour by Fr. Rigge, the person who actually cut the sample, because he, a non-scientist, decided the agreed sampling protocol would cause too much damage to the Shroud.
What your peer reviewed article did document was the failure of the sampling protocols.
Who was present is irrelevant, except that one of them made a big mistake. The three-in-one Herringbone weave is irrelevant and not proof of anything. Mrs. Swordmaker has a Linen table cloth that is three-in-one Herringbone weave. If I were to cut a tea stained spot out of her table cloth (not something I could do and survive 'til morning—and no, there are no tea stains in her tablecloth) and laid it next to a sample of the Shroud, it is likely that they would be extremely similar. Having such a weave at the beginning of a journey to a test lab and having such a weave at the end of the journey is not proof that the sample is the same at each end. Ergo, just the fact that the weave is the same does not prove WHAT that weave is made of or when. Mere observation that the samples have herringbone weaves is not sufficient scientific examination. What is relevant is the fact is that the protocols were violated, the sample area poorly considered, and therefore the samples were invalid. Garbage in, Garbage out.
The C14 labs were innocent of the failure of science in this. They tested accurately what they were sent—samples that were mixed older and newer material.
After the publication of your "peer reviewed" article in Nature 337 published in February, 1989, has been superseded by further research that shows the samples were not homogenous nor were they exemplar of the thing intended to be tested. The tested samples were a melange of older, original shroud linen and newer linen that had been dyed to match the aged color of the original and then skillfully rewoven into the original cloth, DUPLICATING the original three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud. (A skillful repairer would have done a poor job had they merely sewn on a one-over-one patch made of red cotton, don't you think?).
Peer reviewed and duplicated work in 2004 and 2005 has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the samples tested in 1988 were invalid. Photomicrographs of the remaining sub-sample clearly show the splicing of threads of mis-matched linen by careful end-to-end interweaving of the fibers making up the individual threads. On the main body of the Shroud, threads that broke or ran out while weaving were simply spliced by laying two threads side-by-side and weaving this double woof or warp thread for a distance sufficient to lock the thread. No threads have been observed that were spliced by joining end-to-end as were those found in the C14 samples. The linen threads closer to the edge of the cloth are contaminated with cotton, dyed with a madder root dye, retted with an alum (2% aluminum!) based mordant, and are slightly smaller on average than threads taken from other areas of the Shroud, and contain a significant remnant of vanillin in the cellular structure. These threads are distinctly different from threads taken from the main body of the shroud which contain no cotton, were not dyed, have no madder root substances on them, show absolutely no aluminum, are statistically larger than newer threads, and show absolutely no vanillin remnant. Therefor, the samples are made of two different sources of linen... and are therefor not exemplar of the Shroud.
In the face of this evidence, anyone who still thinks the C14 tests done in 1988 are still valid is clinging to an unreasonable doubt.
Lots of talk, no links.