How come the Bible doesn't go gaga over Jesus' graveclothes?

If the graveclothes of Jesus had his image upon them, does it not seem that it would have been noticed and would have become a subject for discussion? Yet, beyond what is in the Gospels, there is complete silence in the Bible about the graveclothes.
Even the professed Christian writers of the third and fourth centuries, many of whom wrote about a host of so-called miracles in connection with numerous relics, did not mention the existence of a shroud containing the image of Jesus.
“You shall not make yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the waters under the earth. You shall not bow down to them.” (Exodus 20:4, 5, New Jerusalem Bible)

SHOOT: Even the Vatican are careful to claim the shroud as authentic since if it is proved not to be, what do they say? I do think it is used in the way that an idol is used...to symbolise something that doesn't in fact exist.

clipped from news.yahoo.com While the visit to Turin is a break of sorts, it's not without its own controversies: The Vatican has tiptoed around the issue of just what the Shroud of Turin is, calling it a powerful symbol of Christ's suffering while making no claim to its authenticity. In 1988 the then archbishop of Turin, Anastasio Ballestrero, had the Shroud of Turin examined by radiocarbon dating to determine its age. The tests, conducted by three prestigious laboratories in Switzerland, England, and the United States, revealed it to be medieval, thus belonging to a period long after the death of Christ. Ballestrero accepted the verdict, declaring in an official statement: “In entrusting the evaluation of these results to science, the church reiterates its respect and veneration for this venerable icon of Christ, which remains an object of devotion for the faithful.” “He viewed the bandages lying, also the cloth that had been upon his head not lying with the bandages but separately rolled up in one place.”