The recent arrests of the "Aruba Three",
Joran Van der Sloot and brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe, came right after the
end of the Winter vacation sales season, meaning Aruba's peak tourist season
packages were bought and paid for before the announcements, as not to disrupt
the bread and butter of the Aruban economy. At the same time, Boycott Watch's
unscientific survey of airlines and hotels reveals plenty of open seats on
airlines and plenty of hotel rooms, which may mean the boycott of Aruba is
Boycott Watch believes the timing of
the recent re-arrests was choreographed by Aruba several reasons.
First, if the boycott had not had any effect on
Aruba, there would be no need to Aruba to re-arrest the "Aruba Three" claiming
new evidence, only to have the judge re-release them citing no new evidence.
The prosecutors must have known there is no new evidence, as they present all
evidence to the court.
Second, the only reason
therefore to re-arrest the "Aruba Three" if there is no new evidence is for PR
- either to show that Aruba is doing something, or to plan an exit from the
case as evident by publicly setting a prosecutorial deadline.
This directly fits into Boycott Watch's theory that
Aruba's actions are completely based on preventing another boycott or
minimizing the existing one because Aruba simply can not afford it.
Corroborating this conclusion is a recent report
from Amigoe.com, (12/14/07) in which Amigoe states Aruba is expecting a massive
increase in tourism revenue. However, the publication does not cite where the
increase is coming from. Coincidentally, the timing of the report is close to
the announcement of the planned closing of the Natalee Holloway case.
Boycott Watch spoke with a group of police officers
and lawyers who came to the consensus that although Aruba has a different legal
system than the US, there is still no statute of limitations on murder and a
prosecutor should never give a suspect a get-out-of-jail timeline, which is the
equivalent of telling a suspect how long they will have to hide evidence. This
once again points to Boycott Watch's theory that what we are seeing is Aruba
taking action to specifically minimize or even end the boycott against them, as
opposed to taking actions to solve the case which would by default end the
It is therefore difficult not to conclude
Aruba is closing the case to get Beth Holloway and the boycott out of the news
to alleviate the pressure on Aruba's economy. This explains the Amigoe report
that Aruba expects increased tourism revenue. Aruba apparently set a PR
timeline; yet did not anticipate the reaction from American consumers as
evident in the blogosphere. For example,
"Boycott Aruba - Justice for
Natalee" , reveals that consumer emotions are still running high. If
anything, the recent re-arrests and re-releases have fired up the boycotters.
Boycott Watch believes that what we are seeing is
another case of a PR firm being hired which knows nothing about consumer
boycotts, thus resulting in bad advice. The fact remains that Aruba really
needs to solve the case and not play PR games. The Holloway family and
consumers simply want the truth, no matter how much the truth may hurt.
Aruba, its prosecutor and their PR firm simply
underestimated the American public, to say the least.
UPDATE: See Fred Taub interviewed live on Your
World with Neil Cavuto on the Fox News Channel speaking about Aruba's decision
to close the Natalee Holloway case on December 18, 2007:
See the previous interview of Fred Taub live on Your
World with Neil Cavuto on the Fox News Channel speaking about the Aruba boycott
on November 29, 2007: