What would that prove?
The victims weren't dumped, wonders, they fell as they were shot.
In some cases, other material of human origin was found in association with bullets.
This is vaguely worded. To me, "in association with" connotes "found in the the near vicinity of" like the bit of someone's hand Ranta spoke of finding there. To you, it seems to connote the material was found on the actual bullets.
The victims weren't dumped, wonders, they fell as they were shot.
Well, I don't particularly care whether they fell where they were shot or whether they were dumped there, but I would like to know which way it was. Neither thing would definitively prove who did it, however.
The "fell where they were shot" doesn't square with the Finnish ballistics analyses I cited in the link I gave above. And it doesn't seem to square with the witnesses who said they were walking up the hill when they ran into another group of police who fired at them, and some near the rear managed to escape. Neither matches up with Clinton's claim that they were "forced to kneel in the dirt" and then shot execution-style. The wounds don't match the Clinton scenario either.
You seem determined that it happened just as Bubba said. I want to know how it really happened.