Skip to content

Corrections policy

Last updated 19 September 2026

How to report an error

Every case page carries one "Report an error" link at the foot. It opens this form with the case and the page already filled in, and asks which part is wrong — the timeline, the coverage or the summary — and which entry, so we can find the exact row. You can also start here directly.

Send a request

CaseMurder of Laci Peterson

We handle personal-data requests as right-to-erasure requests where applicable.

We aim to reply within 21 days. You'll get an email confirming what we decided and why.

For example: “12 March hearing” or “Coverage section, second item.”

Be as specific as you can. We’ll check the entry against its source.

Use a full link beginning with http:// or https://.

Required so we can send you a reference number and reply.

What to include

Include the affected page, the detail in question and any supporting source. A reply may take a while — it will come.

If a source link will not open, mention the country or region you are opening it from when reporting it — some court and government websites restrict access by location, so the link may still be working elsewhere.

What you'll get back

Sending the form above gets you an automatic email with a reference number, so there's a record of what you asked and when — on both sides, not just in a sent-email folder. We aim to reply within 21 days. You'll get an email confirming what we decided and why. This is a statutory request. We acknowledge it straight away and aim to respond within one month, as data protection law requires — extendable by a further two months for a complex request, in which case we'll tell you within the first month why.

Possible outcomes

  1. Corrected

    The entry is fixed against a source that supports it — usually by replacing the citation. The entry then reads as the record, without a note about the version it replaced. You get a reply saying what changed.

  2. Hidden

    The entry is taken off public pages while the reported issue is assessed. Entries whose source link has died are hidden automatically until the link is replaced.

  3. Removed

    The entry is deleted where it should never have been listed. Historical court events are never deleted to reflect a later outcome — a reversal is recorded as a new event alongside the original.

  4. No change

    The entry stands. We reply explaining why — usually because the cited source supports it as written, or because the disagreement is with the source rather than with our record of it. If you think that reading is wrong, reply to that message asking for a second look — we'll go back to the source and look again.

Corrected entries appear with their current wording and sources. The identity of the person who reported an error is not shown on the case page.

Right to erasure

You can ask us to remove or amend personal data about you under applicable data protection law. This is a distinct, statutory path from an ordinary correction: pick "Ask us to remove personal data" in the form above. This is a statutory request. We acknowledge it straight away and aim to respond within one month, as data protection law requires — extendable by a further two months for a complex request, in which case we'll tell you within the first month why.

Requests to remove or amend an entry about you

If you are named in an entry, or are a family member of someone named, you can ask us to review it — you do not need to point to a factual error first. Use the form above with the case, the entry, and what you would like changed. These requests are read before anything else in the queue.

We will correct anything inaccurate, remove anything that should not have been listed, and remove names that are not necessary to the record. We will not remove an accurate, sourced court event simply because it is unwelcome — the timeline exists to keep the full sequence, including acquittals, reversals and charges that were dropped, which are recorded as events of their own rather than by deleting what came before. Either way you get a reply explaining the decision, and the second-look path above applies.

Related policies