A review across separate investigations
British Columbia’s RCMP began Project E-PANA in 2005 to examine cases associated with major highways. One question was whether there was evidence that a single offender, or multiple offenders, could be responsible for crimes that had been investigated separately. The project grew from nine cases to 18, according to the RCMP’s 2012 public account.
The agency describes that group as 13 homicide investigations and five missing-person investigations, spanning cases from 1969 through 2006. Those numbers refer to the selected files in the project. The phrase Highway of Tears is also used for a broader community history. Readers should check which group a source is counting before comparing totals.
What a case grouping can show
A review can bring records from multiple police districts together and allow investigators to compare locations, dates and other details. Similarity can help generate a lead. Establishing a link between particular cases still requires evidence that connects them. A project name or a shared route does not give every family the same explanation for what happened.
The reverse distinction matters too. A disappearance can be deeply connected to the region’s history even if it falls outside an investigative project’s selection criteria. A narrow police case list answers a question about the files assigned for review. Broader accounts may be looking at community experience and violence against Indigenous women and girls across a wider area.
Keep each person’s record separate
Start with the RCMP’s dated project summary when you need to explain the selection and count. For any individual case, look for the relevant case notice or later investigative statement before describing its status. The 2012 overview describes the project as it stood at that time. It cannot establish the outcome of every file today.
A useful archive keeps each person’s name and chronology attached to their own record. A map or project total can help readers understand the scope of an investigation. It should also leave room for the different facts and unanswered questions in each case.