I can certainly appreciate the value of original documents. Now that it has been established that the shroud is not a painted image, that would dispel the accounts in those documents. It would have taken a scientific genius to also match up the blood stains with another cloth to be discovered at a later date. Moreover, the 'artist' would also have to be familiar with botany. The combination of pollen spores lodged in the Shrouds surface, as well as floral images mysteriously imprinted on the face of the cloth, have been determined as only coming from plants growing in a restricted area around Jerusalem.
The negative image has apparently been duplicated by an Italian chemist using non-painting methods. So just the fact that the shroud isn't painted (pigments applied to the surface as opposed to soaked in) doesn't "dispel" the original documents.
I keep saying that moderns have this odd tendency to believe that our medieval ancestors were all benighted yahoos and knew nothing about science or technology. Leonardo alone ought to dispel that idea, but there were plenty of others too.
As for the matching bloodstains, since the shroud and photographic images of it have been around for years now, it wouldn't take a genius to match up the photographs with a not "later-discovered" but "later-created" sudarium.
Bit of devil's advocacy here, but this is by no means settled and there's no point in assuming that it is.