Editor's note: This is an edited version of the e-mail sent in response to Marc Bowman's guest commentary submission.

Hi Marc, I appreciate you and your brother sharing your thoughts with us. Reporting on rumors is always a tricky animal in the journalism world. We have to preemptively decide whether we're inadvertently propagating the rumor by writing about it or, in fact, debunking it. In this case, Ms. Curtis' story had circulated so widely that we could be legitimately accused of ignoring an important public safety concern by not addressing it.

I'm not sure what Ms. Curtis has told you about her conversations with reporter Scott Anderson before the Jan. 23 story appeared, but you appear to be under some big misconceptions:

You say the controversy hinges on the word "there" in her TSPN interview, but that is not wholly accurate. In statements she made to Scott during more than one phone interview, she maintained the accident occurred to a child on his way to the school, which is not what happened to the boy you mention. She also said there was widespread support for moving the school, which, at the very least, is arguable. Scott's friend David wasn't on his way to school and wasn't even a student at Pine Grove Elementary 20 years ago, when the tragedy occurred. Even so, Scott explicitly asked Ms. Curtis if that was the child she meant - to give her the chance to cop to an innocent mix-up, but Ms. Curtis wouldn't answer one way or the other (as Scott explained in the e-mail to your brother, which you refer to and it seems you read).

Now I don't know if she heard the story wrong and misconstrued it, but Scott gave her ample opportunities to expound upon or revise her story. She didn't.

You ask, "Why was the death of a man attempting to cross Highway 88 in front of the town hall also not mentioned?"

The simple answer is that that wasn't the story Ms. Curtis was using to build her argument. My guess is making a case to move the school becomes more difficult when the examples you're using occurred nowhere near the school or to an elderly gentleman, but that's really a question for Ms. Curtis, not us.

You're right that there's a real conversation to have about public safety on Highway 88 and whether the school's existing location is the best place for it. As someone who's written about the corridor options the Amador County Transportation Commission and Caltrans are considering for Highway 88 through Pine Grove, I think it's a subject worthy of journalistic explication as well. And Scott did quote a California Highway Patrol officer who made that very point in the article. But the story Scott covered was specifically about a rumor that was spreading through Pine Grove like wildfire and one which, after his story was published, evoked widespread gratitude from residents who had themselves watched the TSPN interview and witnessed Ms. Curtis' statements at local council meetings.

You say Ms. Curtis has been "crucified" for her actions. I say it is the truth that was crucified, intentionally or not. To concoct a story about a dead child or adulterate it to suit your purposes when law enforcement and school officials roundly denounce it is strikingly inappropriate, to say the least.

I'm hopeful this was simply a case of someone erroneously repeating an untrue tale like a bad game of telephone. I'm hopeful Ms. Curtis made an honest mistake and hadn't realized it yet when she spoke to my reporter. I'm hopeful no one associated or familiar with your potentially worthwhile project would be so morally bereft as to see an opportunity in trafficking a fabricated story about a dead child.