Brennan, I already acknowledged that Oswald denied killing Tippit. That's not discussing it. If they said, "Did you kill Tippit?" and Oswald said "No" and that was all that was said, it's not a discussion. They supposedly had a witness who saw Oswald do it, so wouldn't they bring that up? They supposedly found his ejected shells at the crime scene, so wouldn't they inform him of that? They supposedly found his wallet at the crime scene, so wouldn't they inform him of that? And if he denied doing it, wouldn't they follow automatically and immediately with, "Then where were you when it happened? What's your alibi?" But, there is no record of any of that.
So, to you this looks good:
But, to me, it looks pitifully and woefully inadequate. It is surreal that they would report that he denied killing Tippit and nothing else, when the direction of the inquiry was so obvious. Did they even ask him how he got from his room to the theater? I don't mean just make the assumption that he walked there by way of 10th and Patton. I mean ask him point-blank: "How did you get from your room to the theater?"
The scantiness of the record of Oswald's interrogations is an outrage, and it is screaming foul.