Mr. Rankin.

Oh, you do recall?

Mr. Johnson.

And it was not near the date.

Mr. Rankin.

I see. When was it?

Mr. Johnson.

The envelope has a postmark of the 1st of November. I received it on the 29th of November. That is the day after Thanksgiving.

Mr. Rankin.

You were probably surprised to receive----

Mr. Johnson.

I was. This was after the assassination date by a week.

Mr. Rankin.

Did you answer that letter?

Mr. Johnson.

No.

Mr. Rankin.

You did not?

Mr. Johnson.

No.

Mr. Rankin.

You remember receiving it personally rather than someone in your office at that time?

Mr. Johnson.

It was brought in by the mail carrier in the normal--in the afternoon, and then was delivered to me within the office, yes.

Mr. Rankin.

Will you place your initials under mine?
(Witness complies.)

Mr. Rankin.

Do you know any reason for the delay in the letter?

Mr. Johnson.

I really do not. That's an unusual delay. I could readily see a delay occurring after the 22d, but to have a delay from the 1st to that date seems to me to be beyond all normal procedure. Even when mails are held and checked during a thing like that, they wouldn't stand so long. I cannot understand.

Mr. Rankin.

Did you make any examination at the time to determine whether Exhibit 7 had been opened by anyone before you received it?

Mr. Johnson.

No; except that the envelope has the unusual line on the back which indicates that there was possibly an opening and return. But that could also be the way it was folded or something like that. But you can see the line here [indicating].

Mr. Rankin.

Will you mark that----

Mr. Johnson.

You see that. It looks that to me, anyway, as if this was the line where it had been opened and then put back. Then if you look at the envelope itself, as an airmail envelope, normally this part would be turned down, and instead it's open like this. Now, it's true that, folded that way, it fits in only when it is this way, but then this line should not have been here. There is something odd about the whole letter as far as the delivery itself is concerned.

Mr. Rankin.

Would you make a pen line on the place on the back that you find that unusual marking, please.

Mr. Johnson.

(Witness complies.) I will admit I was very much surprised when I received that letter. I was bound to look at it.

Mr. Rankin.

Did you discuss it with anyone at the time?

Mr. Johnson.

I guess I just made comments all over the place about getting a letter from him at that time.

Mr. Rankin.

Do you have any question about whether Exhibit 7 was prepared and sent by Mr Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Johnson.

I never studied his handwriting too carefully. There are several things that looked a little bit odd about it. It's a little hard to say. For instance, you have a different kind of ink in two places here. It seems that way to me. But that's pretty hard to say with modern pens. The way he signs his name and the way--that could be a problem, because he didn't always sign it the same or he has "Mr. A. Johnston" up here, and it starts "Mr. Johnson" up here. I don't know what all the confusing elements are, but I would just as soon leave that to someone who is more---who is a handwriting expert, and I am not.

Mr. Rankin.

Did you ever have a conversation----

Mr. Johnson.

It may be worthwhile to check it with a handwriting expert on that.

Mr. Rankin.

A conversation with V. T. Lee or any others in regard to the Fair Play for Cuba matter and Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. Johnson.

At no time.

Mr. Rankin.

Did you have any conversation with anyone about the effect