Some of my thoughts on the concept: A pilot with well ingrained habits from landing on conventional runways might assume the way to land on a long, narrow strip of reef is lengthwise, parallel to the beach. A pilot with experience landing on open "fields" might think landing directly into the wind was important and ignore the orientation of the reef. A pilot with creative imagination, or desperation, or even clouded thinking that overcomes habit might land in any direction, including across the reef heading towards the beach. Is it likely that a pilot unfamiliar with the reef structure would touchdown near the outer edge, near the surfline? Perhaps that would seem like a reasonable approach (sorry for the pun), rather like touching down "on the numbers", since it leaves the maximum distance to roll-out while approaching the beach and trees. As I recall, the distance from edge of reef to the beach is a couple hundred yards, which is much less than the normal landing distance for most aircraft. The distance parallel to the beach is much longer, and might offer a temptingly dry, flat, smooth landing spot with plenty of room to stop.
If a taildragger touched down at the reef edge, and caught a main gear in the reef immediately upon touchdown, the damage I imagine would be nearly complete, with neither engine capable of running. The main gear support structure also supports the engine on that side. It seems more reasonable to me to assume a successful touchdown that left the aircraft more intact than such a violent touchdown would allow, if any of the post-loss transmissions DF'd by Pan Am are to be believed.