Stuart Knowlton abduction and murder of Cassie Hansen

The timeframe in which the episode occurs is always an interesting factor to me. It indicates everything from investigation and communication technologies to the police's procedures. In 1981, there were essentially no computer-based databases or communication like email, no cellular phones, and DNA's use in criminal trials was still years away. It was a completely different world in terms of forensic evidence and in the methods police used to investigate a crime like Cassie's murder. The "oldest" case that I know covered on Forensic Files was Marked for Life (s10e02) where Gerald Mason shot and killed two police officers in 1957.

In Cassie's case, rounding up a list of sex offenders in the area wasn't easy. Today, anyone can go onto multiple web sites to find registered sex offenders' names and addresses in any area. This episode indicated the technique involved reviewing past crimes in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and gathering accounts from community feedback.

A false confession

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

Before investigators zeroed in on Stuart Knowlton, they felt luck might be on their side when someone offered a confession to the crime. The woman from Texas told police that she had abducted and killed Cassie Hansen, and that she had acted alone. Given that semen was recovered from the victim's clothes and that women are statistically very unlikely to commit such a crime against a child, it was determined the confession was false. Apparently, the deranged woman had learned facts about the case from television and newspapers and provided those details in her confession. I'm confused by the motive in this. My initial guess is that she did it for the attention, but one is putting oneself at great risk in this. If the police aren't diligent, this could lead to an arrest, a charge, and even a conviction. What's the point in confessing if this woman didn't actually want to go to jail? I'm guessing she had some sort of chemical imbalance.

The original Mindhunter: John Douglas

I've read John Douglas' magnum opus Mindhunter (twice). A lot of credit for the FBI's criminal profiling program also goes to Robert Ressler, but Douglas has been more conspicuous. Some readers find Douglas to be self-promoting and arrogant, which isn't entirely untrue. But on the whole, his (and others') contributions to the successes of the FBI's program are significant.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

A friend of mine downplays the value in a criminal profile, so each time I hear/read about one's use in a case, I pay close attention. Between Forensic Files and multiple books, I've gotten a feel of what these profiles sometimes seem to reveal, and when they're obvious and unhelpful. In the Cassie Hansen case, John Douglas revealed these specifics about her killer:

• He'd be a white male, a loner, and have a poor self-image.
• He'd probably have a history of child sex offenses.
• He'd frequent parks where children played.
• He'd be nocturnal and drive around at night.
• He wouldn't flee the area feeling his actions were justified.
• He may've kept souvenir from the crime.
• He'd be obsessed with the murder and need to talk about it.

Among the other John Douglas 'murderer' profiles I've read about, many of these aspects are familiar. Other fairly frequent ones not cited here include: The perpetrator may lose weight, the perpetrator would live near the crime scene, and a ubiquitous Douglas go-to: The perpetrator would drive a small red or yellow car, perhaps a Volkswagen Beetle.

Many of these indicators seem like logical, educated guesses. Profiles often include that the perpetrator would have only finished high school (or even dropped out) and have a menial job. But it's not often that these types of crimes are committed by academics and scholars. Many of these profile factors are likely common among the type of offenders who would commit this time of "opportunity" crime. The profiles usually include an age range – this often seems to be "between 20 and 30 years old". But given the age of this case's victim, perhaps this wasn't appropriate. It makes me wonder which portions of the profile might be conveniently left out when we laypersons read about them after the fact. Are there other predictions that have turned out to have been mostly inaccurate?

Massage parlors in the 1980s

The episode focused on Dorothy Noga quite a bit, but it didn't paint her occupation in the kindest light. Between speaking of massage clients often "confessing their sexual fantasies" to their therapist, and the vignette showing the therapist dropping her bra and a towel, the impression of "back alley" massage parlors of the era is sketchy at best. I've been a client at modern, upscale massage chains like Elements and Massage Envy at various times over the years. I prefer to not speak with the practitioner at all, let alone "confess" anything.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

Dorothy first tipped police off to her client Stuart Knowlton after his request for her to provide him an alibi for November 10th "if anyone asked". Since it was unlikely anyone would ask, this was likely Knowlton needing to talk about his crime. Noga offered to wear a recording device and see if she could capture evidence on tape, but the police initially declined. It was interesting that Janice Rettman made a similar request which the police accepted. This is where the narrative became a little disjointed to me. Later, the "Undercover Agent" talked about "hours on end" of recorded conversations between Noga and Knowlton, without him restating his previous confession to her. Then the episode went on to describe the attack on Dorothy occurred mere hours after Knowlton actually confessed to killing Cassie to her. Finally a December 2017 article stated that the city of St. Paul approved a $50,000 settlement for failing to "provide adequate protection" to Noga on the night she was assaulted.

Hold-back evidence and Knowlton's slip-up

The standard criminal investigation tactic of not revealing all of a case's facts to the public helped again in this situation. Cassie Hansen's body was found the morning after her murder. The cause of her death was revealed as strangulation with a belt. But unbeknownst to the media, Cassie had also been beaten about the head and face. This was the hold-back information that police hoped an unwitting suspect might inadvertently reveal. This was precisely what Knowlton did in his recorded conversation with Janice Rettman. It wasn't the most convincing admission, but it seemed to be enough for police to plan Stuart Knowlton's arrest. And recall it was right before police picked him up that he was struck by a car and ended up losing half of his left leg – it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Image credit: Episode screen capture from Forensic Files

It was stated that Knowlton had something of a shoe fetish, and that he might've kept one of the buckles from Cassie's shoe as a trophy from his crime. I'm still curious about the location of the shoes though. I can think of other scenarios that seem more plausible than Knowlton driving from scene to scene to distribute the evidence in plain sight. To me, it's more likely that an incident at one of the scenes caused Cassie's shoe to be ejected from the car, and the other was simply discarded at a later time. Or Knowlton didn't immediately locate both shoes when he first sought to discard them.

Stuart Knowlton trial and conviction

First degree murder was the appropriate charge convict Stuart Knowlton on. But the episode also included second degree misconduct – an interesting enough crime to warrant additional research. It's probably safe to bet Knowlton's misconduct was of the 'sexual' variety. Perhaps this was an easier charge to prove with the evidence. It reminded me of another crime I'd recently learned of: Mayhem. According to Britannica.com, it's an "offense against the person in which the offender violently deprives his victim of a member of his body, thus making him less able to defend himself." This can be anything from a finger to a leg, or even an eye.

Thankfully, it seems some good surrounded Cassie's murder. The Hansens went on to have two more daughters after Cassie's murder. Dorothy Noga had risked her own life to help gather evidence leading to Knowlton's conviction. And the "Save Cassie's Friends" organization hopefully heightened awareness and prevented the abduction of other vulnerable young ones. A couple of parting questions to ponder:

• If the car hitting Knowlton in downtown St. Paul had happened now versus in 1982, is it possible doctors may have been able to avoid amputating his leg?
• The perpetrator who slashed Dorothy Noga's throat was said to have "run away". Was this possible if the attacker was Knowlton?  

Where is Stuart Knowlton now in 2024?

In a trial in 1983, Stuart Knowlton was found guilty of murder and misconduct and was sentenced to life in prison. An article stated that when he was eligible for parole after 17 years, the Hansen family fought hard to keep him incarcerated. Stuart Knowlton served 23 years of his sentence and died in 2006 of natural causes.