Is that really an indirect speech?

[Wingedfish]

Hi, Dears,
I was told that we should translate the present time into the past time when the introducing verb is in the past tense in dealing with the indirect speech. That is why I get the following form:

He said:"I will be waiting for you tomorrow." ---- He said that he would be waiting for me tomorrow.

But I read some grammar books which say that if the thing or action is located in the future, we can still use the verb in the present tense: He said that he will be waiting for me tomorrow.

What's the difference? And I found a sentence in which I think the substitution of WOULD with WILLis not possible:

The next day they met again at the dairy and, said the girl, Keyser asked to visit her. The girl said that she refused that request and a second one later, but that on Jan. 29 she agreed. " He said he would come about 9 p.m. and would give me I $2.80, " the girl testified. The girl went to the police. When Keyser arrived on schedule, the watching police waited until his intention became unmistakable, then arrested him.

Is that because in the first sentence, WOULD is the result of time accordance while in the second one WOULD is the effect of a past situation?
Hoping you can understand my question:)

[Mister Micawber]

.
Yes, I understand your question, and your interpretation is correct.

[Wingedfish]

Thank you very much for you confirmation.