Not only did the manner in which the unfortunate men decided to adopt their idea have a sort of democratic notion to it, in that all members had to agree, but the casting of lots is in and of itself as fair and democratic a method of choosing one of the five as the situation would allow. Whetmore, who originally proposed the plan and the method of casting lots, tried to withdraw from the agreement when lots were about to be cast (citeing a desire to wait another week before carrying out the plan) but was charged with a "breach of faith" by his companions and had the die (with which the lots were being cast) thrown for him. When asked if he had any objections to the fairness of the throw, Whetmore said he had none. The posing of this question signifies that the members did not wish to target him in any way and truly wanted the lots to be cast fairly even if it meant their own life.
As the testimony does not inlcude Whetmore's response to the accusal of a "breach of faith", it must be speculated. Whetmore's lack of objections to the throw of the die signifies to me that he agreed to reenter (probably non-verbally as a verbal agreement would most likely have been included in the testimony) the agreement but allowed the die to be thrown for him because he lacked the strength to do it himself. At first this reasoning seems weak but when we again apply common sense, we see that if he had not agreed to reenter the agreement then he would have stated objections to the fairness of the throw regueardless of whether or not he thought the throw to be fair. He would have done this either as a refusal to participate or as a reaction to fear (e.g. to try to buy time or convince the others to drop the plan). We know this is true because common sense tells us that Whetmore knew he would not have an opportunity to back out after the lots were cast if they were again!.
st him, an assesment made by his own common sense.
