I think, Jenny’s conclusion is not supported by her own text. As she writes:
1. Generally speaking, accurate dating requires more than C-14 alone. [...]
2. C-14 dating is not necessarily more dependable than other methods. In fact, it can be undependable for some very specific reasons. [...]
3. The 1988 Carbon 14 dating of the Shroud has been the subject of extensive discussion because, in the history of C-14 dating, the shroud is unique —a small, one-of-a-kind sample, a contaminated artifact, making accurate dating harder—and the dating was seemingly affected by various procedural and statistical problems. [...]
4. It’s absolutely true that after the findings of 1988, the idea of error in the carbon 14 dating began floating around. Believers were desperate. Multiple theories were put forth. Some were even supported with real science, but none were definitive enough to actually overturn the findings. [...]
The 1988 carbon dating, once seen as proving the shroud was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial.[...]
If we wish to be scientific, we must admit we do not yet know, with certainty, how old the cloth is. [...]
The radio-carbon dating of 1988 is not secure, but it is the only piece of authentic data that argues strongly that the shroud is not, itself, authentic.
I agree. She gives the 1988 C-14 test the benefit of every doubt due to an over abundance of caution. I disagree. Falsification is falsification. It’s like being only a little bit pregnant. You are or you aren’t. When that failure of the Chi-squared tests cannot show conclusively that the sub-samples which were cut from the same master sample were not homogenous to each other, then there is no conclusive evidence that the master sample can be assumed to be homogenous with the Shroud itself. That alone throws the dating of the Shroud into doubt.
Ergo, Jenny’s conclusion that the C-14 dating must be considered as “still valid” is wrong.