Was the sample used in the Jull paper NOT from the Shroud of Turin?

Two comments from B&B, with the second startling comment arriving only a half hour after the first:

1. Does it bother anyone that Tim Jull commandeered a souvenir or museum curiosity of the Holy Shroud that was given to Arizona expressly for c14 testing? Wasn’t there a protocol? Is this ethical? Now that Jull admits to having a piece of the shroud shouldn’t he return it to the rightful owner?

Think about the ramifications of this next comment. I think he may be right. Others have expressed similar concerns:

2. Hey, that isn’t even [a] piece of material from the shroud. Look at the photograph. That’s not 3 over 1 herringbone. Did Jull accidentally save a control sample and then study that by mistake? Is Arizona messed up or what?

I have now heard from five knowledgeable people who think that the fragment examined by Jull is not from the Shroud of Turin because it is not a 3-over-1 twill weave. What do you think?

To the right is the picture from the Jull paper. It is a small subset of the bigger picture below from a news account about the Jull paper. To my untrained eye it looks like a 2-over-1 twill which may or may not be herringbone. How do papers like this get corrected if such a mistake was made?