VALDOSTA, GA – It has been three months since, local civil rights leader, Rev. Floyd Rose announced a reward offer in the death Kendrick Johnson. In October, Rev. Rose offered a reward of $10,000, for 90 days, to anyone with information leading to the arrest of a person(s) who could have been involved with Kendrick Johnson’s death.
On Tuesday, Jan. 21, Rev. Rose held a press conference where he announced the $10,000 check would be returned to Roy E. Taylor, the local Valdosta businessman who anonymously donated the check in October. Taylor had asked Rose to coordinate the reward offer, but stipulated that the reward would only be available for a 90-day period.
The intent of the reward was to encourage anyone with information to come forward, said Rose. Any information that was brought to Rose’s attention would be immediately shared with U.S. District Attorney Micheal Moore and the Johnson family attorney Chevene King, but according to Rose not a “single piece of credible information” was given to him.
Rose told reporters Kenneth Johnson, Kendrick’s father, had called before the reward was announced in October angrily objecting the offer be made. At the press conference on Tuesday, Rose provided a letter he sent to King in October which expressed Rose’s confusion as to why Kenneth Johnson would not want the reward offered, when it could lead to an arrest of someone responsible for his son’s death. Roses states in the letter he did not tell a CNN reporter of Kenneth Johnson’s opposition in October.
“I didn’t tell the reporter that Mr. Johnson didn’t want me to offer the reward, because nobody would have understood that: NOBODY,” according to the letter from Rose to King, “The conclusion would have been, as you know, that the family wanted to drag this matter out so they can raise money. I can’t understand why Mr. Johnson was so angry and adamant in not wanting me to offer the reward…”
During the press conference Rose was very adamant that his position on Kendrick Johnson’s death is that it was a tragic accident, and that claims of a cover up are implausible.