The Discursive Construction of Blame:

The language of public inquiries James

Murphy
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-discursive-construction-of-blame-the-language-of-
public-inquiries-james-murphy/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Crises, Inquiries and the Politics of Blame 1st ed.

Edition Sandra L. Resodihardjo

https://ebookmass.com/product/crises-inquiries-and-the-politics-
of-blame-1st-ed-edition-sandra-l-resodihardjo/

Making Sense of Natural Disasters: The Learning Vacuum

of Bushfire Public Inquiries Graham Dwyer

https://ebookmass.com/product/making-sense-of-natural-disasters-
the-learning-vacuum-of-bushfire-public-inquiries-graham-dwyer/

The BBC, The 'War on Terror' and the Discursive

Construction of Terrorism 1st ed. Edition Jared Ahmad

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-bbc-the-war-on-terror-and-the-
discursive-construction-of-terrorism-1st-ed-edition-jared-ahmad/

Poetry of the New Woman: Public Concerns, Private

Matters Patricia Murphy

https://ebookmass.com/product/poetry-of-the-new-woman-public-
concerns-private-matters-patricia-murphy/
Language investment and employability : the uneven
distribution of resources in the public employment
service Coray

https://ebookmass.com/product/language-investment-and-
employability-the-uneven-distribution-of-resources-in-the-public-
employment-service-coray/

The Language of Ontology J. T. M. Miller (Editor)

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-language-of-ontology-j-t-m-
miller-editor/

Leibniz: General Inquiries on the Analysis of Notions

and Truths Massimo Mugnai

https://ebookmass.com/product/leibniz-general-inquiries-on-the-
analysis-of-notions-and-truths-massimo-mugnai/

The Empire’s New Clothes: The Myth of the Commonwealth

Philip Murphy

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-empires-new-clothes-the-myth-
of-the-commonwealth-philip-murphy/

Blame It on the Mistletoe Beth Garrod

https://ebookmass.com/product/blame-it-on-the-mistletoe-beth-
garrod-3/
 T H E D I S C U RSIVE
C O N S T R U C TIOON OF BLAME

The Language of Public Inquiries

JAMES MURPHY
The Discursive Construction of Blame
 James Murphy

The Discursive
Construction
of Blame
The Language of Public Inquiries
James Murphy
Bristol Centre for Linguistics
University of the West of England
Bristol, UK

ISBN 978-1-137-50721-1 ISBN 978-1-137-50722-8 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50722-8
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018942350

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019

The author(s) has/have asserted their right(s) to be identified as the author(s) of this work in accordance
with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Martin Barraud/Getty Images

Cover design by Tjaša Krivec

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Macmillan Publishers Ltd. part
of Springer Nature
The registered company address is: The Campus, 4 Crinan Street, London, N1 9XW, United Kingdom
 Acknowledgements

This was a project which Prof. John Wilson instigated prior to his
retirement from Ulster University and I enthusiastically accepted his
invitation to join it over dinner at a conference. John then went on to
retire more fully and responsibility for this work passed to me. I am
grateful to John for that initial invitation and for subsequent discussions.
The work has changed in all sorts of ways, though Chapter 1 has John’s
fingerprints on it, and I’m grateful to him for allowing its use here.
Needless to say, he is not to blame for any of its shortcomings!
I am grateful to my colleagues at the University of the West of
England for their support during the writing process. They have been
especially encouraging and generous with their advice. I am particularly
grateful to Dr. Kate Beeching and Prof. Richard Coates for reading over a
number of chapters and to Prof. Jonathan Charteris-Black for discussions
about blame, often in the pub after a Bristol Rovers game. Dr. Anna
Piasecki has picked up some of my slack and has been greatly encour-
aging. Harriet Castor Jeffery’s red pen was a great help, as were our
Friday afternoon G&Ts. My colleagues in Linguistics and Writing really
are a great bunch.

v
vi Acknowledgements

I also have to acknowledge the fact that this work has been completed
thanks to two stints of faculty research leave which granted me a
reduction in my teaching load, which certainly allowed me to maintain
my sanity, especially in the final stages of the writing.
Undertaking a work such as this means that the professional and
personal overlap greatly (too much!). I thank Emily McCoy for making
sure we were well looked after and for all of her support; an effort made
all the more impressive given that she’s been carrying our first child. I am
thankful also to Barbara & John McCoy for their cheerleading. My
mother, Jacqueline, has supported me in everything that I have ever
chosen to do and has always had an encouraging word when it’s been
needed. My siblings, Daniel, Craig and Rachel, despite our woeful
inability to communicate with each other, I know are always there for
me.
I dedicate this book to my late father, Martin Murphy who passed
away before the book was completed and whose effusive praise at its
publication I will sorely miss. He always showed interest, asked insightful
questions and encouraged me to be concise. I hope all of this is reflected
in the end product.
 Contents

1 Introduction 1

2 Openings: Terms, Conditions and Getting Started 17

3 Questioning 47

4 Blame Avoidance 103

5 The (Non-)Assigning of Blame 159

6 Apologising 201

7 Conclusion 267

vii
viii Contents

Appendix A: List of Public Inquiries Referred to 275

Appendix B: Terms of Reference of the Public Inquiries

Discussed in Chapter 2 279

Bibliography 295

Index 307
 List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Parliamentary activity and the pressure felt by the

government to establish an inquiry 19
Fig. 3.1 Woodbury’s question types and their relationship to modal
and interpersonal properties 50
Fig. 3.2 A continuum of conducivity, adapted from Fig. 8 in
Archer (2005) 53
Fig. 3.3 The order of themes in service users’ evidence 89
Fig. 4.1 Shaver’s (1985) summary of blame (his Figure 8.2) 115
Fig. 4.2 An adapted version of Shaver’s (1985) view of blame 118
Fig. 5.1 Lexical items used to carry out blame in Volume 2,
Chapter 16 (‘Who was to blame?’) of the Shipman
Inquiry (frequencies in brackets) 165
Fig. 6.1 Participation structure of a post-inquiry apology 236

ix
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 Dates relating to inquiry processes 29

Table 2.2 The contents of inquiry Terms of Reference 35
Table 3.1 Question types as posed at the C. Diff Inquiry 79
Table 3.2 A comparison of inquiry and courtroom question types 79
Table 3.3 Distribution of questions for service-user witnesses vs.
hospital staff witnesses 83
Table 4.1 The top 50 keywords in the News International corpus 131
Table 4.2 Themes of keywords found in the News International
corpus 132
Table 5.1 Frequency of blame-related lexical items, per million
words 181
Table 5.2 The frequency of the top 10 verbal collocates of ‘must
have’, frequencies per million words with raw frequencies
in brackets 187
Table 5.3 The frequency of the top 10 verbal collocates of
‘should/ought to have’, frequencies per million words
with raw frequencies in brackets 190
Table 5.4 The frequency of the top 10 verbal collocates of ‘may
have’, frequencies per million words with raw frequencies
in brackets 191

xi
xii List of Tables

Table 6.1 Post-inquiry apologies analysed for this chapter 222

Table 6.2 Explicit and conventional apology tokens found
in historical apologies 249
 1
Introduction

This book is about blame and in particular how it is performed at public

inquiries. Blame has been extensively thought about by moral philoso-
phers, sociologists and psychologists, but has been investigated very little
by linguists. The public inquiry as a site of action has also been under-
studied, despite its increasing frequency in public life. This work seeks to
remedy this—by analysing the talk of actors involved in public inquiries
with a view to investigating how blame is constructed in this setting. I
will show that, despite not being explicitly performed, blame pervades the
discourse of the participants at inquiries. Unlike some, I do not see this as
a bad thing, and I hope to argue that blame is a healthy and natural part of
public life. Whilst the establishment of a blame culture can have negative
effects, these are not outweighed by the importance of accountability in
civic life. The public inquiry may be seen as the ultimate arbiter of such
accountability and I will demonstrate how this accountability emerges,
from the establishment of the inquiry panel, to the questions which are
asked of witnesses, to the evidence which those witnesses provide and to
the reports which emerge as a result of this evidence.
Having set out the broad aims of this work, in this chapter I will go into
some detail about the purpose of the public inquiry and their relationship
© The Author(s) 2019 1
J. Murphy, The Discursive Construction of Blame,
https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50722-8_1
2 J. Murphy

with blame (Sect. 1.1), the typical processes of inquiries (Sect. 1.2) and the
history of public inquiries as a part of civic life in the United Kingdom
(Sect. 1.3). In Sect. 1.4, I will go into some more detail about how inquiries
unfold over time and the hurdles which are encountered as the inquiry
progresses. Section 1.5 explains the general approach of the book, touching
upon the main methodological tools and theoretical ideas invoked in
the study and Sect. 1.6 outlines the structure of the work. I conclude in
Sect. 1.7 with an explanation of why I think this book is needed, and what
I seek to achieve in presenting a view of blame at public inquiries.

1.1 The Purpose of Public Inquiries

A public inquiry is an ad-hoc temporary body established by the govern-
ment for specific purposes. There are a variety of such bodies with varying
functions; some examples include Royal Commissions, Committees of
Inquiry, reviews or task forces. As the House of Commons Library note
on public inquiries puts it:

The term ‘public inquiry’ has a very broad meaning, and the history of
the British government shows that there are in fact a number of forms of
‘inquiry’ available, designed, in principle to fulfil specific functions. Some-
times the wish may be simply to establish the relevant facts, leaving their
interpretation, the allocation of ‘blame’ and recommendations for future to
other agencies such as Ministers, Parliament or the courts. In other circum-
stances it may be thought desirable that the ‘inquiry’ itself undertake these
broader, perhaps more delicate tasks. A prime purpose of some inquiries
may also be to allay public (and Parliamentary) disquiet about some public
issue or a ‘scandal’. (Briefing note SN/PC/2599 )

For the purposes of this book, however, the focus will specifically be on
those types of public inquiry which are ‘investigative’ in nature and which
have been set up in a context where something has gone seriously wrong in
terms of government procedures or actions, or where the matter has raised
issues of public concern regarding the behaviours of bodies such as the
police, the NHS and the press. Moreover, only inquiries established under
 1 Introduction 3

the terms of the Inquiries Act (2005) or its predecessor the Tribunals and
Inquiries Act (1921) are examined in this work (I will discuss these acts in
Sect. 1.3). This will ensure some level of commonality between the rules
governing the inquiries and, therefore, offers the possibility of comparison
between different inquiries.
Public inquiries are now a central part of modern political structures
not only in the UK but also Australia, New Zealand and Canada where
older colonial links have created public inquiry models very similar to
those found in the UK. But outside such connections the overall concept
of the public inquiry is also central to other developed democracies, for
example the USA has its own forms of investigation such as Presidential
Committees and Congressional Committees.
Public inquiries were first instituted with the central aim of:

establishing the facts…the modern model of the public inquiry often has
as its central (but not only) question, ‘what happened?’. And further it also
functions to ‘identify wrongdoing, blameworthy conduct, or culpability by
individuals and organs of the state’. (Beer 2011: 2)

Contrast this, however, with the then Government’s view expressed to a

2004 parliamentary commission that the purpose of a public inquiry was
‘to prevent recurrence…and learn lessons, not to apportion blame’ (House
of Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Government by
Inquiry, Evidence 29, iii, my emphasis).
These two sets of aims seem potentially contradictory or at the very
least in conflict with one another, after all given that public inquiries are
called where something has gone wrong how does one identify culpability
without apportioning blame? Furthermore, how does one learn lessons
and avoid recurrence without accepting that what did occur was wrong
or should not have happened? In stating that something is wrong, if one
shows that someone can be held responsible for such negative actions or
outcomes, is this not a form of blame? From the Government’s viewpoint
it seems that ‘facts’ should be neutral, i.e. person X did action Y; the
perspective of some inquiries is that it is not so simple as to say that X did
Y, but that Y is a negative action which X is responsible for and therefore
to blame for. Views of what blame is do differ, but a straightforward way
4 J. Murphy

of thinking about it is that it sees a speaker assigning responsibility for an

action considered to be negative to a hearer or third party. As such, any act
which identifies culpability is surely also an act which blames. Describing
an act as one which needs to change surely allows a hearer to infer that
the act is a negative one. I shall return to these complexities around blame
in Chapters 4 and 5. I will also consider the delicate Terms of Reference
which inquiries are given which have in mind these conflicting views in
the next chapter. But these initial thoughts should plant the seed of an
issue which will emerge in this book: blame is something which can be,
and is, carried out indirectly.

1.2 The Process of Public Inquiries

In most cases public inquiries are chaired by a judge, although this is not
necessary. The chair of an inquiry is not tasked with assessing innocence or
guilt, that is the function of the courts. At the start of the Chilcot Inquiry
into the Iraq War, the matter was put in this way:
(1) Sir John Chilcot’s statement to the press: 30 July 2009
1 As I have said before, we are not a court or an inquest or a statutory inquiry; and our
2 processes will reflect that difference. No one is on trial. We cannot determine guilt or
3 innocence. Only a court can do that. But I make a commitment here that once we get to
4 our final report, we will not shy away from making criticisms where they are warranted.

Nevertheless, whether chaired by a judge or not, and Chilcot’s comments

notwithstanding, most such investigative inquiries take on a quasi-legal
status, and although they are said to be less adversarial rather than pros-
ecutorial in nature, their organisation, procedural production and ques-
tioning patterns, as well as the overall style/register of the language used
places them within a set of recognisable legally-based, if not legally bound,
activities. One of the aims of this book is to examine where the language
of inquiries is marked as being distinctive from prosecutorial (criminal)
forms of courtroom talk and how this relates to the construction of blame
and responsibility. I will take up this aspect in Chapter 3.
In this case, and like most legal or legally influenced activities, public
inquiries are dependent on ‘language’. As Tiersma puts it:
 1 Introduction 5

any legal activity, such as settling disputes, making contracts, or providing

for what happens to your possessions after you die, presupposes the existence
of a sophisticated system of communication, which is another way of saying
that such legal activities require language. (Tiersma 2009: 11)

It is a fundamental claim of this book that language is central to the

nature of public inquiries and that they may be seen as discursive activities.
That is to say, they are forms of talk in which the organisation, processes,
understanding and outcome of public inquiries may be analysed in terms
of units of language which are packaged—often as discrete discourse struc-
tures: e.g. openings and closings; sequential patterns: e.g. questions and
answers; or individual actions: e.g. accounts, justifications, and apologies.
Consider, by way of introductory example, the following extract from
the Leveson Inquiry into the Culture, Practice and Ethics of the Press:
(2) Leveson Inquiry Oral Evidence Day 64. Lord Justice Leveson
= LJL
1 LJL: On Monday afternoon I said this: “I understand the very real public
2 interest in the issues that will be ventilated by the evidence. I also
3 recognise the freedom that permits what is said to be discussed and
4 the subject of comment in whatever way is thought fit, and I shall be
5 interested to see how it is covered. For my part, I shall approach the
6 relationship between the press and politicians from an entirely non-
7 partisan judicial perspective, which I have no doubt is the reason that
8 I was given this remit. I would hope that this approach will be made
9 clear”. When I said those words, I had in mind some of the evidence
10 that I anticipated we would hear, including that which we did in
11 fact hear yesterday. In the light of the reaction and considerable
12 commentary last night and this morning, it’s appropriate for me to
13 say a little more. This necessarily involves explaining something of
14 the judicial process.

We can notice, without the need for invoking any linguistic theory at
this stage, several things about this short extract. Its quasi-legal style is
clear in several ways, not least of which is Leveson’s own use of the term
‘judicial’ both in judicial perspective and judicial process. But the level of
formality used is also noteworthy—both lexically, as in the interesting
used of ‘ventilate’ as found in will be ventilated by the evidence and the use
of grammatical complexity in lines 2–5 for example, which includes both
embedding and conjunction of clauses. In that same extract, note also the
6 J. Murphy

use of the auxiliary ‘shall’ which is preferred in more formal genres over
the more commonly used ‘will’ (Biber et al. 1999: 148ff.).
Finally, consider the way in which Leveson uses direct quotation to
refer to what he said previously (line 1 introduces this). This is a verbatim
account, readily available from previous recordings and transcripts. This
differs from more informal use where our direct quotations are often more
ad-hoc paraphrases, e.g. quotatives such as: I was like, and the expectation
of our interlocutors is that what we are reporting is not a completely
verbatim account (see Buchstaller and van Alphen 2012). This is clearly
something which Leveson is keen to avoid by referring and evidencing
what he said, word-for-word.
In this informal assessment of a brief extract from one of the inquiries
which I will return to later in this book, we can see some of the things
that will be explored in what follows. Many such things we will look at in
more technical detail. For now though, let us consider briefly how public
inquiries have emerged over time and consider their inexorable rise such
that they are now a key feature of the political and social landscape.

1.3 A Potted History of the Public Inquiry

Since 2005 public inquiries have been carried out under the auspices of
the Inquiries Act (2005), which replaced the Tribunals and Inquiries Act
(1921). Before the advent of either act, most investigations into wrong-
doing or government failings were conducted ‘in house’ by Parliamentary
Select Committees of Inquiry—specially convened groups of parliamen-
tarians who were able to call for evidence, examine witnesses and hold
ministers to account (see Thomas 1971: 14–44).
This system, of the legislature investigating the wrongs of the executive,
was replaced following the Marconi affair in 1912 and its investigation by
a Parliamentary Select Committee of Inquiry. The Marconi Company was
alleged to have made corrupt payments to the government in order to ben-
efit from a deal to build telegraphy systems across the British Empire. The
investigation which followed saw government members of the committee
(who were the majority) produce a report which exonerated the ministers
implicated. As Beer notes, it ‘was this unsatisfactory outcome that led to
 1 Introduction 7

the replacement of Parliamentary Committees with public inquiries’ (Beer

2011: 6).
The replacement of this approach was the Tribunals and Inquiries Act
(1921). This allowed a motion to be lodged by any parliamentarian to
establish an inquiry independent of government to be established, if this
was agreed to by a vote in both the House of Commons and the House of
Lords. This meant that parliamentary time had to be found to debate the
motion, and since the executive has control over the majority of business
presented before parliament, this could be made difficult. That aside,
the power to institute an inquiry laid with all parliamentarians and not
just members of the Executive (this is very different to the Inquiries Act
2005). The Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1921 allowed for an investigation
to made either privately or publicly and the constitution of the inquiry’s
panel could be decided during the debate on whether to hold an inquiry
(and could be changed by seeking an amendment to the main motion). In
its history, 24 inquiries were carried out using the 1921 act. Three of those
are examined in this book: the Cullen Inquiry, The Shipman Inquiry and
the Bloody Sunday Inquiry (see Appendix A for more details on these).
More information on the 1921 act can be found in Keeton (1960).
Beer (2011: 23) outlines the reasons which were presented for replacing
the 1921 act with the new Inquiries Act 2005. These included a need for a
clearer framework for the conduct of inquiries, issues which arose because
of devolution to the nations, and some concerns about the cost of tribunals.
The main difference between the two acts is that the 2005 act allows only
a minister to establish a public inquiry. This means that parliament does
not get to introduce a motion to hold a public inquiry and is reliant on
the executive establishing an inquiry. We will see in Chapter 2 how MPs
may lobby for an inquiry using parliamentary means, but nonetheless,
the establishment of an inquiry is in the gift of a minister. That executive
power extends to who is asked to chair the inquiry and sit on its panel;
there is no necessity for parliamentary involvement or approval in these
matters either. Furthermore, the timescale of an inquiry is determined
by the minister, rather than the panel and the minister is empowered
to terminate an inquiry before it has completed its work. The level of
executive power allowed for in the Inquiries Act 2005 has been strongly
criticised and this is summarised by Beer (2011: 24ff.). The processes
8 J. Murphy

found in the 2005 act are a clear departure from the 1921 act, and some
have questioned how independent an inquiry can truly be when so much
power is invested in the government. This is not a matter for this book,
but it can have a bearing on the work the government has to do to ensure
an inquiry has credibility and this is something which I will pick up again
in the next chapter.

1.4 A Standard Timeline for Public Inquiries

It almost goes without saying that each public inquiry is different—they
are led by different people,1 they inquire into different events which came
about in vastly different circumstances and in different areas of public life,
etc. However, some generalisations can be made about what happens and
when in relation to the establishment and conduct of a public inquiry.

0. The ‘wrong’—the incident or incidents which trigger the need for

an inquiry. The length of time between this trigger and the following
stages is massively variable (see Sect. 2.3 for some indication of this).
1. Public disquiet—campaign groups may be formed to both support
people affected by the wrong, but also to lobby for a proper investi-
gation into its causes and handling (this investigation may include a
public inquiry, if the matter is considered serious and/or if previous
investigations have been unsatisfactory).
2. Parliamentary moves—individual MPs with affected constituents
and/or who are supportive of the campaign groups may raise the need
for a public inquiry in questions, debates and emergency debates in
parliament. The nature of these moves is discussed in the next chapter.
3. Announcement of an inquiry—the government may concede that
a public inquiry is necessary and the minister will then announce its
establishment by making a statement in parliament.

1 Forthe most part at least—some inquiry leads are considered successful and invited to conduct
subsequent (related) public inquiries. For instance, Michael Redfern QC led the 2000 inquiry into
unauthorised organ retention at the Alder Hey Children’s Hospital and was invited to chair the
Redfern Inquiry into organ retention in the civil nuclear industry in 2007.
 1 Introduction 9

4. First hearing of the inquiry—after preparatory work which goes on

behind the scenes (including finding a chair and agreeing Terms of
Reference, also discussed in the next chapter), the inquiry will hold an
initial public hearing in which it outlines what will be investigated. It
will call for interested parties to come forward with information that
will help in its inquiry and will set out a timeline which the inquiry
will aim to follow.
5. Collection of written documentation—the inquiry seems to go quiet
after this initial hearing, but behind the scenes documents are col-
lected, collated and interrogated. Summonses requiring the disclosure
of evidence may be issued.
6. Announcement of core participants—following this huge endeavour
of synthesising written evidence, the key witnesses who will be required
to give further evidence to the inquiry will be informed of their status
as core participants.
7. Hearings to collect oral evidence—hearings take place to collect
oral evidence. These are most often public, but can be held in camera.
Questions are usually asked on the basis of written submissions. This
aspect of the inquiry will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
8. Correspondence with participants for further information/
clarification—if necessary, further clarification can be sought from
witnesses in writing. This may particularly happen if a later witness
brings evidence which requires a previous witness to clarify a com-
ment. The initial witness may be recalled to give further oral evidence,
but it is often sufficient for them to provide a written response.
9. Writing of the report—on the basis of the evidence presented to the
panel, the chair (along with other panel members) writes the inquiry
report.
10. Writing to those criticised—before the report is published, a warning
letter must be sent to those who are criticised in the report which offers
them the right to reply. This reply may trigger a redrafting of the report,
or may simply be published in the final report, or may be dismissed
entirely. Moreover, the inquiry is only obligated to provide warning
letters to those who are criticised. Beer (2011: Chapter 9C) discusses
this process in more detail.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
IVAN THE TERRIBLY SIMPLE
November 24, 1917
ITALIAN GRAPES
November 30, 1917
ON TO BERLIN
December 1, 1917
SIGNS OF A RED CHRISTMAS ON THE WEST FRONT
December 12, 1917
OLIVER TWIST HOOVER
December 15, 1917
 DRAFTED
December 28, 1917
THE TWO-HEADED MONSTER
December 29, 1917
HE CERTAINLY HAS BEEN GOOD TO HER
January 24, 1918
THE ORIGINAL GROUND HOG
February 2, 1918
UNSINKABLE
February 8, 1918
PRUNING TIME
February 17, 1918
ONE OF THE DECISIVE BATTLES OF THE WAR
February 21, 1918
ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF GERMAN THOROUGHNESS
February 22, 1918
THE BEAST WITH THE INSATIABLE HUNGER
February 26, 1918
THE ONLY WEAPON THAT CAN GET HIM
March 7, 1918
AFTER THE RAID
March 14, 1918
THE PROMISING PUPIL
March 17, 1918
IT SHOOTS FARTHER THAN HE DREAMS
March 26, 1918
“CELEBRATE!”
March 27, 1918
HINDENBURG: “THE RAIN STOPPED US”
April 5, 1918