Suspicious behaviour of first husband Bottenberg

Bottenberg admitted trying to strangle his wife on earlier occasion

1. Ten Winkel, the wrongfully convicted second husband of Bebe Paña always stated he thought his wife had committed suicide. Prosecution and police always stated she was killed.
   It is therefore odd that no research was done into any other possible perpetrator than de defendant, such as Paña's first husband Hans Bottenberg. In fact, the Dutch Forensic Institute (NFI) never did any research -such as nail scrapings, hair, skin, semen or other DNA traces- that could point to any other suspect.
   The police was convinced Paña was killed and they decided they already knew 'whodunnit', before any proper investigation was made. Clearly a case of "we made up our minds, we do not want to be confused with the facts". However, the following facts should have made Bottenberg a serious suspect:
   
   
   
   
   • Hans Bottenberg was continuously quarreling with Bebe regarding their son Dennis. These fights were so serious that at one time the police in Woerden had to mediate (as is clear from the file). Hans then refused to return Dennis
   
   
   • Hans Bottenberg was convinced Dennis received beatings from Paña, and he wanted to take action
   
   
   • According to Bottenberg's own statement (dd 16 Sept 2004 and 2 March 2005), Hans Bottenberg was afraid that Bebe would disappear to the Philipines with Dennis. ("I did not dare to go to a lawyer because I was afraid that Bebe would hurt Dennis or would leave with him to the Philipines"). Bottenberg wanted to take legal action, but did not dare to.
   
   
   • Under his a.k.a. "Hans Koop" he was complaining about his ex-wife Bebe Paña in the newsgroup "nl.support.echtscheiding" ('echtscheiding' = divorce). At jan 7, 2001, so two weeks before Bebe died, Bottenberg seemed to see no solution anymore.
   
   
   • Often there were arguments between Hans Bottenberg and Bebe around the alimony. Bebe did not ask for an increase, just the annual indexing as was set by the court.
   
   
   • Witness Atwin Walhout stated (dd 28 june 2005) that Bebe on several occasions showed him black and blue spots on her back and thighs, that were caused by Hans Bottenberg. He found this behaviour to 'fit' Hans Bottenberg because in the mean time he had witnessed some aggressive explosions of Hans Bottenberg.
   
   
   • Hans Kooyman stated that in the period that Bebe stayed with him, she was afraid of Bottenberg who "came across violently" (12 august 2003).
   
   
   • Bottenberg, during his marriage to Bebe Paña, has tried to strangle Bebe (5 januari 2005: "at this incident I grabbed her by the throath". "She then saw the devil in my eyes." Shortly thereafter he tried to mitigate this statement (dd 28 March 2005: "Then I put my hand around her neck"). In Bottenberg's statement of 28 June 2005 however it turns out to be a real strangulation attempt ("I think I had my thumbs on the front of her throath") that fortunately ended well because Hans Bottenberg 'came to his senses'. Perhaps on 21 januari 2001 he did not 'come to his senses' in time.
   
   
   • Bebe stated that Hans Bottenberg also attempted to strangle her end of 2000 (as confirmed by Stella Paña early 2002).
   
   
   • During their marriage, arguments usually became physical.
   
   
   • According to Hans Bottenberg's own admission, Bebe could drive him out of his senses.
   
   
   • Bottenberg knew that the defendant was not home in the evening of 2001 and that Bebe in fact was at home.
   
   
   • That evening Hans Bottenberg was late for an appointment with the defendant somewhere else in Nuenen, as Bottenberg admits himself.
   
   
   • Bebe was found dead after this appointment
   
   
   • Hans Bottenberg, according to his own admission (as is evident from Bottenberg's deposition) was convinced in August 2000 that 'a million was to be had' from the estate of the defendant and Paña.
   
   
   • After the 'disappearance' of Bebe Hans Bottenberg tried to insinuate that her aunt Gemma and her uncle had probably killed her and suggested that the defendant should have her declared dead (as if Bottenberg already knew she would not be back).
   
   
   • Early 2002 Bottenberg tried to stop the defendant from visiting this aunt and uncle in Manila.
   
   
   • After Bebe's disappearance Bottenberg forged Bebe's signature (see his statement of 12 august 2003) in order to gain custody over Dennis (as if Bottenberg already knew she would not return).
   
   
   • When Peter R. de Vries started to get interested in the case, Bottenberg told the defendant that he had the feeling to have 'landed into a nightmare'.
   
   
   • Bottenberg goaded Mr. Barreveld to make untrue (as was proven) statements regarding visits to prostitutes from defendant. He informed defendant before hand what 'Barreveld would find'.
   
   
   • Bottenberg tried to further and further incriminate defendant with incidents that he or Dennis 'suddenly remembered'.
   
   
   • The Paña family has suspicions regarding Hans Bottenberg as well, in 2001 as is evident from their letter dd 15 sept 2001.
   
   
   
   


2. With regard to Bottenberg's statements concerning his visit to the defendants brother on 21 januari 2001 Bottenberg has stated 3 times that it was at night. Hans Bottenberg even remembered it was dark and knew the exact times. Striking in this is that in his statement of 5 Januari 2005 Bottenberg says that he remembers this because he looked in his mother's diary
   
   
   
   • 12-01-03 "That same night I went to Nuenen."
   
   
   • 5-1-05 "I think I was already early in the evening in Nuenen at the house of xxxxx [defendants brother]. In the house were present xxxxx, yyyyy, and zzzzz [the defendant]...." For this Bottenberg consulted the diary of his (Bottenberg's) mother.
   
   
   • 11-01-05 "It was already dark. I arrived there [in Nuenen] between 20 and 21 hrs. Also zzzz [the defendant] was there in the house".
   
   
   
   


3. Strangely enough on 9 May 2006, Hans Bottenberg suddenly changes his statements. Bottenberg now states that he arrived earlier in the day and he knows that because he consulted his mother's diary. Summarizing: 5 Januari 2005 Hans Bottenberg looks in the diary of his mother and then he knows it was 'early in the evening' and 9 May 2006 Bottenberg looks in the diary of his mother and then he knows it was in the morning.


4. The police visits Hans Bottenberg on May 2, 2006 and then suddenly Bottenberg finds it necessary to set up an appointment with them again on May 9, 2006, to alter his statement.


5. In her june 2006 verdict the court states that it is improbable that Hans Bottenberg is the culprit because because there were 'no signs of forced entry'. This is a misguided statement. Bebe would have opened the door for Hans and therefore, the fact that there were no traces of forced entry fits Hans Bottenberg as a culprit. (Compare the case of Tamara Wolvers in Alphen a/d Rijn. The official (police and prosecutor) position there is that Wolfers must have been killed by an acquaintance because there were no signs of forced entry. In the mean time an ex-uncle of Wolfers has been apprehended and endicted in the case).


6. Because Hans Bottenberg earlier also has demonstrated control like behaviour towards Bebe Paña (by own admission Bottenberg illegally acquired a Girofooncode from her, and Bottenberg also wrote letters in her name to decline a house offered to Bebe after their divorce).

It is not the defendants position that Hans Bottenberg killed Bebe Paña because the defendant remains convinced that his wife committed suicide. However Hans Bottenberg is the only one who had advantage of Bebe Paña's death. Hans Bottenberg has now custody over Dennis and was convinced to get a substantial amount of money out of the estate. Hans Bottenberg had motive (money, custody, fear that she would disappear with his son), means (his hands that had tried to strangle her twice before) and opportunity (Bottenberg knew she was alone that evening, he was late for a meeting with the defendant.)

See Second Husband set free/ ten Winkel not guilty/Dutch NFI - Forensic institute botched up evidence


Keywords: Bebe Paña,Nuenen, Stella Paña,Paña, Suicide, Fatima, Bottenberg, Hans Bottenberg, Philipines, Atwin Walhout, NFI

Disclaimer: The above is no accusation of Hans Bottenberg. In fact, the defendant always stated that his wife had committed suicide. This text merely discusses the fact that it is strange that when the authorities were convinced that a crime against the life of Bebe Paña had taken place, Bottenberg was never considered a suspect, although he had motive and opportunity. No motive was ever established for the defendant not even after extensive and repeated psychiatric and psychological examination. The examination only made clear the defendant was a non-violent person who would avoid conflicts.