To the Editor:

A Grant County deputy appointed by Sheriff Glenn Palmer was found guilty of no less than three felonies by a Grant County jury of his peers — not some Portland jury. Roy Richard Peterson was convicted of first-degree theft, first-degree aggravated theft and possession of a stolen vehicle involving government money and government equipment of the Monument Rural Fire District. According to an Aug. 26 Blue Mountain Eagle article, the prosecutor described Peterson as using the fire district as “his personal piggy bank.”

According to the same article, Palmer told the Oregon Department of Forestry that Peterson obtained the equipment “legally and lawfully through ODF.” A Grant County jury of Peterson’s peers reached the completely opposite decision and convicted him of three felonies. Does this reveal that Palmer is incompetent regarding his professional judgment?

According to the same article, Palmer also said that there was no probable cause that a crime had been committed by Peterson. A Grant County jury of Peterson’s peers reached the completely opposite decision and convicted him of three felonies. Does this disclose that Palmer’s professional judgment is reckless?

Why is Palmer’s professional judgment about Peterson the complete opposite of a Grant County jury of his peers? According to an Aug. 20 Oregonian article, “Palmer’s cellphone records dating back to November show he talked to Peterson more than anyone.” Is Peterson a friend of Palmer?

Is Sheriff Palmer’s professional judgment reckless and incompetent?

Brian McDonough

Bennington, New Hampshire