It depends on what EXACTLY he told them:
---------------Bus ride(s) only
---------------Abortive bus ride followed by cab ride
---------------A. N. Other gave him a ride
The many problems with Mr Whaley's statements raise serious doubts as to the middle answer above, which is the official story of what Mr Oswald said. And the interrogation reports claim he only 'admitted' this the following day. Why would even a guilty Mr Oswald have wished to hide the fact that he had gotten a cab?
IF Mr Oswald told them something that suggested assistance from someone neither a bus driver nor a cab driver AND/OR ruled him out as the shooter of Officer Tippit, and if his claim were verified, then this claim would have been suppressed and a new, improved one put in his mouth in the interrogation reports.
Again, all that mattered was a lone nut narrative that could be sold to the public
You're not making any sense Alan (I won't alert the media)
If Oswald was innocent he would have no accomplices, no car and no way of getting home other than public transport.
He left the TSBD on an impulse and didn't have time to organise anything.
Why would he lie about taking public transport? Why would he suggest he had help?
If he got public transport, as he admitted he did, why do the investigating authorities have to rush out immediately and invent a cab ride.
You're not making any sense.
As far as the irrelevant detail regarding how Oswald got to his rooming house is concerned, there is no difference between "the lone nut narrative" and an innocent Oswald getting home.
No need for fake cab rides etc.
"Why would even a guilty Mr Oswald have wished to hide the fact that he had gotten a cab?"A guilty Oswald wouldn't want authorities to know he went back to his rooming house (to collect his gun)
A cab ride can be traced, as can the driver, who can identify Oswald.
A guilty Oswald would try to give the impression he went straight to the Texas Theater as an attempted alibi for the shooting of Tippit.
