Reading the book "A Course in the Theory of Groups" by D. J. S. Robinson, I was looking at the proof of 6.4.3 (iii), which states (suppose we are in the case of two groups): if $G_1$ and $G_2$ are groups, and $H$ is (isomorphic to) a subgroup of every $G_\lambda$, let $G:=G_1*_HG_2$ be their amalgamated free product; then an element of $G$ has finite order if and only if it is conjugate to an element of some $G_\lambda$.
We know that $G_1*_HG_2\cong\frac{G_1*G_2}{N}$ where $N$ is the normal subgroup of $G_1*G_2$ generated by $\{ h\theta (h)^{-1}\, |\, h\in H\}$. Therefore any element of $G_1*_HG_2$ is in fact of the form $gN$ for $g\in G_1*G_2$.
My question is: in the statement, are we taking the conjugate in $G:=G_1*_HG_2$? In other words, does the statement mean that for every $gN$ of finite order in $\frac{G_1*G_2}{N}$ there exists $w\in G_1*G_2$ and $a\in G_\lambda$ (for some $\lambda\in \{ 1,2\})$ such that $w^{-1}gwN =aN$?
If this is the case, I don't get the proof of the book, since to me it seems that the book proves a stronger condition: I think that for every $gN$ of finite order in $\frac{G_1*G_2}{N}$ there exists $a\in G_\lambda$ (for some $\lambda\in \{ 1,2\})$ such that $gN =aN$. This is a stronger condition, and I don't see why the books state the theorem with conjugation (also "An Introduction to the Theory of Groups" by J. J. Rotman does, in Theorem 11.66).
Indeed, the proof shows that the only normal form in the class $gN$, which is of the form $h\bar{g}_1\cdots\bar{g}_n$, has necessarily $n=1$ (otherwise we get a contradiction, as by conjugating we get a finite order $g'N$ whose associated normal form has length reduced by 1), i.e. $gN=h\bar{g}_1N$, where $\bar{g}_1\in G_{\lambda_0}$ for some $\lambda_0\in\{1,2\}$. This clearly implies that, by identifying $h$ with its image in $G_{\lambda_0}$, $h\bar{g}_1$ is a finite order representative of $gN$ and belongs to $G_{\lambda_0}$.
Therefore: am I missing some subtlety in the proof, or is the statement meant in another way? For example, maybe the statement tells that the representative $g\in G_1*G_2$ is conjugate in $G_1*G_2$ to some $a\in G_{\lambda_0} $ for some $\lambda_0\in\{ 1,2\}$? But it would not be clear to me how this would follow from the same proof.