Summary and import of the document

Scheller was interviewed on the record by an agent from Colorado Farm Bureau Insurance, her insurer.  The agent asked numerous questions about the accident.  Some of her answers are quite telling about her view of the incident.  Below are excerpts from the document.

Q: This is Kevin Carr with Colorado Farm Bureau Insurance. Today is Tuesday, June 16, 2015, and I’m speaking with Ms. Sharon Scheller.

Regarding the time of the accident,

Q: Alright, and you, and do you remember approximately what time this happened?

A: Oh probably around 12, around noon.

This statement is false. The accident happened between 11:15 -11:30.

Even the police report states that officer Lorenzen received around 11:42 a call with the report of the accident. When I called 911, I was on the phone getting instructions and being asked questions about 10 minutes, so 11:42 minus the 10 minutes means that the accident took place no later than 11:30.  Was this an attempt by Scheller to throw off any investigation that looked at cell phone records.  Was she on the phone at the time of the accident?

Regarding Scheller’s meeting at Biaggis,

“…. I was meeting my sister for lunch and then I had a meeting.”

So, she was late for her meeting with her sister, and she had a meeting later.  She told the Officer that she is a doctor and had a call at the hospital.  She is not a medical doctor and has not been licensed to practice medicine.  But being the CEO of the hospital, she likely knew that police will give deference to a doctor with medical responsibilities.  The police officer did not check to see if she was a medical doctor, or simply a PhD.  If Scheller is a doctor, why did she not ask if Daniela or Karla were hurt in the accident?

Regarding Scheller’s observation of what happened.

“I saw her kinda rubbing up against the curb.  She didn’t go up and over.”

That is grossly wrong.  My van went up over the curb, across a sidewalk, into a field, and stopped just short of a large, deep waterway with about a 10 foot drop-off into the water.  Even the officer mentioned to me that, on the way to the Centerra Mall, he stopped at the scene and saw the tires marks of my van on the dirt.

Regarding later conversation at the parking lot with Daniela,

“..how did the cop call it, um, a cultural difference.  He said that.  (Okay) I think she was from Iran or somewhere.”  This raises the question of prejudice against foreigners by both Scheller and the police officer.  For the record, I, Daniela am from Romania, which is part of southeastern Europe but now I am a US citizen.  I am Latin, not Iranian.

Regarding her stay at Biaggi’s,

“Well I’m a doctor and I had an emergency, so I told her I said I’ll give you all my information, but I have to take care of this emergency.”

This statement is not accurate. Daniela had to ask Sharon Scheller multiple times to provide her information about her name, insurance policy and phone number as instructed by The 911 dispacher. Scheller did not mention to me anything about an “emergency”. All she mentioned was that she has an appointment with her sister, she is late for lunch, and she is hungry. As I left the parking lot after 1 pm, Scheller’s car was still parked in the lot by Biaggi’s where she was having lunch with her sister. It doesn’t seem that there was much of an emergency. She was in the restaurant where the police officer could have observed for intoxication, but he failed to look for her.  He was professionally trained to recognize an intoxicated person, but his training was not used in this incident.

The insurance agent asked Scheller if she was issued a ticket.

“…not at all.  I didn’t have anything.  He ( the officer ) didn’t have a reason.”

Given the serious nature of the incident, leaving the scene of the accident, running away, and the possibility of damage under the car, the officer had sufficient justification for issuing a ticket.  His failure to do so makes us wonder if he was lazy, prejudiced against me or both.

Regarding comments to Scheller about Daniela’s motivation,

“Now he ( the officer ), he thinks , and that’s why I’m giving you guys a heads up, he thinks that you know, she could be, wanting us to pay for damage under her car $2,500 worth in fact and maybe she’s scamming us, (Okay) cause she’s just like a bulldog with a bone and, um.”

So it appears that the police officer has somehow taken the opinion that I, Daniela am a scammer.  With no proof at all, he takes a prejudiced view of me.  Perhaps that prejudice explains why he didn’t do anything to investigate the accident.

In summary, the “on the record” interview that Scheller had with the agent from Colorado Farm Bureau Insurance shows mistaken or deceptive statements, and prejudicial comments from the police officer, as reported by Scheller.