I think an important thing to consider is WHAT POSSIBLE REASON WOULD THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS HAVE HAD TO LIE ABOUT WHAT PETER WAS DOING? These men were writing just a few decades after the Crucifixion, the Gospels had not even been compiled or even necessarily written. Would they "lie" in anticipation of a controversy that would not even appear for another fifteen centuries?
Good question and it should be pursued. There is very little in the writings of the early church fathers regarding Peter being in Rome.
The real question is: "Why didn't Jerome and Eusebius check with Scriptures that they were supposed to be cannonizing. Perhaps instead of cannonizing, and retranslating it, they should have just read it and believed it, and thrown those myths from the apocryphal literature and debatable sources into the Tiber.
This is why it is fallacious to put the writings of the patriarchs on the same level as Scripture. They can't always be trusted ---- not so with Scripture. When they disagree, it is wise to go with Scripture. When they disagree, too often the Magisterium of the RCC have chosen to go with the patriarchal writings and misled themselves and others.