1) History: It’s true that the Pope wrote in his bulla: "it had to be said with a clear and loud voice that it was a mere representation".
It’s also true that in the last version of the bulla this sentence was deleted; you can read about this matter: Emmanuel Poulle, « Le linceul de Turin victime d’Ulysse Chevalier », Revue d’histoire de l’Eglise de France, 2006, vol. 92, n° 229, p. 343-358
2) Anatomical correctness: many forensic doctors have studied the Shroud’s image and no one has found problems in the anatomy; I can remember: Antony Sava, Robert Bucklin, PierLuigi Baima Bollone, Frederick T. Zugibe (http://www.e-forensicmedicine.net/).
You can read the last peer reviewed paper by Dr. Gilbert Lavoie: "A medical study of the surface anatomy of the image and a medical forensic evaluation of the blood marks of the Shroud of Turin in relation to image formation". http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/LavoieWeb.pdf
3) About the "amazing" life-size reproduction of the Shroud made by Prof. Garlaschelli, please read the peer reviewed paper: Heimburger,Fanti "Scientific comparison between the Turin Shroud and the first handmade whole copy". http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/HeimburgerWeb.pdf
4) I cannot believe that Prof. Gibson in the documentary said that Akeldamà Shroud is all wool and s-spun; I quote from his book: "since both the woolen and linen parts exhibit a type of warp that was both Z-spun and S-spun" ("The final Days of Jesus", p. 144).
5) Prof. Lombatti writes that "Shroud fans have never mentioned the Second Temple burial cloth remains that were found"; this is very incorrect since we have this 2010’s paper: Fulbright, "Akeldama repudiation of Turin Shroud omits evidence from the Judean Desert"
http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/FulbrightAkeldamaWeb.pdf