I am still not convinced these are totally accurate. Not that you didn't put them where he motioned, but that he did it so generally. I still don't believe the girls were face down either. It would have been impossible to put all the shots in the front (as they claim they were) with the girls having been face down. This would have required them being moved after the fact and I don't think that happened.
I didn't show the bodies face up or face down, just symbols - since we don't know.
I believe the girls could have been shot in the face and chest and fallen face down. From what I can see both girls were standing on a gradual downward slope toward the roadway - and the shots came from that direction so they must have been facing the road (and the shooter) on ground with a gradual slope forward. People who are shot, don't fall immediately - the natural physical response to being shot (from the front or the back) is to take maybe a step or two forward, stop in shock and then grasp your hands over your chest or face/head and bend forward at the waist defensively. That position weights the body even more to the front than it is naturally. People who "crumple" from the knees or waist usually fall face down because the human neck is designed to drop the head forward to the chest and the waist only bends one way, forcing the body forward onto it's face, not backward onto it's back.
What is shown on TV with people falling and dying on their backs, is not realistic. Reality is that humans who are shot in the chest instinctively bend at the waist to protect the chest and present a smaller target, then their knees collapse, propelling the body down to a kneeling position (where shots to the front of the body can continue) and finally the now heavily front weighted body leans forward at the waist and falls face down, due to the now unsupported weight of the head collapsed to the chest pulling them forward. The girls could have been shot several times in the chest and face and neck while still upright (the shots reportedly came fast) and still fallen face down. Then the gunman/men COULD (we don't know that he did) have approached the bodies and delivered a kill shot or two to the top of the head from a standing position, or if he knelt down or bent over, a kill shot or two under the chin. The girls would remain as they fell, face down and the gunman would never have to touch the body.
Unless the 1st shots were made at very close range, by a very powerful weapon that would literally propel the body backward onto it's butt (and eventually falling backward from a sitting position face up) due to the force of the shot, OR the ground was sloped significantly downward behind each girl, it is likely that the information released in the 1st few days is correct, and the girls were both face down, heads toward the road. And Rosser was very clear that the girls heads were toward the road. To fall on their backs with their heads toward the road, they would literally have had to spin around with their BACKS to the shooter positioned in the road (where the bullet casing were found) before they fell - and no wounds to the back were reported by the ME...chest and face/head only.
If they didn't fall that way, if anyone moved the bodies onto their backs it would have probably have been Peter Placker, not the killer. While the killer(s) could have, it wouldn't make any sense for the killer(s) to turn the girls face up (or touch the bodies at all). I mean I hope the killer(s) were that stupid and left their DNA all over the girls, but I am not counting on that.
My Opinion