The Murder Sheet: The Murder of Sharon Myers – The Overturned Verdict

Date: September 30, 2025
Hosts: Áine Cain (Journalist), Kevin Greenlee (Attorney)

Overview

This episode explores the 1997 murder of Sharon Myers in Columbus, Indiana, the conviction and recent overturned verdict of Jason Hubble, and the complex web of evidence, trial errors, and legal ethics that now leave the case in uncertain territory. The hosts engage in a nuanced discussion on wrongful convictions, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial—even when available evidence points strongly toward a defendant’s guilt. They take listeners step-by-step through the evidence, controversy, and legal fallout, maintaining transparency about their sources and reasoning.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Larger Context: Wrongful Convictions

• Opening Framing: Kevin Greenlee notes that while wrongful convictions do happen, everyone in the justice system ideally agrees that convicting an innocent is an unacceptable outcome.
  • “It's very hard to convict someone of a crime. And it's very hard… if there's any problem… because the system is really designed to lean towards protecting the rights of the innocent.” (03:27)
• The episode's purpose: To analyze whether Jason Hubble actually killed Sharon Myers and, crucially, whether he received a fair trial.

2. The Case Background: The Abduction and Murder

• Victim: Sharon Myers, woman in her mid-20s, new mother, human resources employee at Arvin in Columbus, Indiana.
• Suspect: Jason Hubble, Arvin employee who had a documented strained relationship with Myers.
• Events of May 13, 1997:
  • Eyewitness Sherry Young saw a man and woman in the Arvin parking lot, man’s hand on lower part of woman’s neck, entering a white van. She noted the van’s license plate.
  • The license plate traced conclusively to Jason Hubble’s van. Hubble’s alibi (not at Arvin) was contradicted by witnesses who observed his van missing from his driveway and Young’s testimony.
  • Host reaction to the evidence:
    • Áine: “That's very damning.” (12:02)
    • Kevin: “…it would have to be an amazing coincidence that the number she got incorrectly also linked Back to a vehicle of the technical description.” (12:39)
• Hubble’s Statements: When confronted, Hubble allegedly made strange comments:
  • “He can't say he did do it, but he has prayed to God every night since that it isn't so…” (13:24)
  • Áine’s reaction: “That's a weird thing to say.” (14:03)
• Physical Evidence:
  • Fibers from a missing blanket in Hubble’s van found on Myers’ body.
  • Undergrowth from the body dump site found on van’s undercarriage.
• Cause of Death: Ligature strangulation with Myers’ own clothing.

3. Subsequent Discovery and Incriminating Statements

• Discovery of Body: Myers’ body found months later in Camp Atterbury; evidence on body matches evidence in Hubble’s van.
• Jailhouse Informant Testimony: Hubble reportedly made incriminating statements to fellow inmates and coworkers, e.g., “Sometimes women need to be beat and sometimes killed. I covered my tracks well. I've done a lot of planning.” (19:43)
• Host Reaction:
  • Áine: “Okay, so he's obviously guilty.” (21:40)

4. The Overturned Conviction: The Role of Suppressed Evidence & Police Misconduct

• Parallel Case: 1997 murder of Kelly Eckhart—similarities in method and location, but key differences (notably, the handling of shoes at the scene).
• Serial Killer Theory: Michael Dean Overstreet, convicted in the Eckhart case, became a figure in Hubble’s appeal as a possible suspect in Myers’ murder.
• Bombshell Filings:
  • Overstreet’s ex-wife, Melissa Holland,’s late-emerging claim: Overstreet returned home the day of Myers’ murder “covered in blood.” She did not make this claim in 1997 police interviews.
  • Hosts question her credibility, noting shifting stories and media appearances.
  • Kevin: “…why do we imagine that her memory now would be better than her memory 30 some years ago?” (25:40)
  • Áine: “…I don't find Melissa Holland credible at all.” (31:31)

4.1 Suppression of Evidence

• Key detective Dennis Nulf failed to turn over potentially relevant (though likely not exculpatory) evidence to the defense—as well as possibly to prosecutors.
• Nulf’s investigative notes were redrafted to remove links to Overstreet. The host calls this “shameful” and “catastrophic.” (39:29, 55:53)
• The trial judge found Nulf not credible and stated, “it would have been impossible for Nulf not to notice” the omitted evidence. (46:14)
• Examples of suppressed evidence:
  • Reports of Overstreet’s supposed links to the Myers case.
  • A witness’ faulty, shifting accounts about seeing Overstreet and Myers together.
  • Reports of Myers having a public argument with another man days before her murder.

4.2 Legal Impact

• Áine summarizes:
  • “He needed everything that was relevant. Not just stuff that would be admissible in court, but just discovery, all relevant discoveries.” (37:15)
  • The suppression rendered the trial fundamentally unfair, regardless of how persuasive the evidence against Hubble was.
• The judge ruled Hubble did not receive a fair trial; new trial ordered; hosts agree with verdict—regardless of personal belief in Hubble’s guilt.

5. Ethical and Systemic Reflections

• Kevin:
  • “…as frustrating as this is, it is a testament to how seriously we take rights of defendants and the rights of the accused in this country.” (60:33)
• Áine:
  • “If there is indications that things like that are going on, police agencies and the public need to respond swiftly and firmly that that is not acceptable.” (61:35)
• Both Hosts: Emphasize that the system must be fair even for the guilty; suppression and misconduct risk undermining justice for victims as well as the rights of the accused.

6. What Happens Next

• Hubble may walk free if evidence has degraded or is no longer available; current prosecutor must decide whether to retry.
• Hosts will attend and report on the upcoming October 2nd hearing.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Kevin: “Did Jason Hubble kill Sharon Myers? And number two is, did Jason Hubble get a fair trial? And it is entirely possible that the answers to those questions may be different.” (04:30)
• Áine: “That's a weird thing to say.” (14:03) (Re: Hubble’s ambiguous statement to police)
• Áine: “You can't play a card game when you've taken out a bunch of cards from your opponent's hand. Right. Because maybe you would have won anyway, but that's still cheating, and that's not how the game is supposed to be played.” (45:28)
• Kevin: “…the process by which the government exercises that power, it's very important that it be as fair as possible.” (60:33)
• Áine: “…you can't just, like, let, let injustice stand, regardless of whether the evidence… this was not fair. So they have to either do it again or drop it.” (65:50)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [03:27] - Introduction to wrongful convictions, system safeguards
• [09:24] - Case background: key events, witness, and evidence in Myers’ murder
• [13:24] - Hubble’s strange statements to police
• [15:16] - Forensic evidence: fibers, undergrowth, method of murder
• [19:43] - Jailhouse informant statements and fiber evidence summary
• [22:54] - Parallels and differences to the Kelly Eckhart case; introduction of Michael Overstreet
• [24:48] - Examination of Melissa Holland’s shifting testimony
• [31:31] - Debunking claims about Overstreet’s access to the van and license plate move
• [34:01] - Detective Nulf’s hearing testimony and judge’s finding of untrustworthiness
• [39:29] - Systemic failure: suppressed evidence, altered notes
• [43:02] - Third party suspect evidence withheld
• [50:55] - Host summary of importance of fair process vs. factual guilt
• [55:07] - Hosts’ shared personal opinions: Hubble appears obviously guilty, but did not get a fair trial
• [60:33] - Reflection on justice system values and the importance of due process
• [62:49] - What happens next: pending hearing, possibility of retrial

Tone & Style

• Language: Direct and conversational with clear legal and journalistic reasoning.
• Tone: Analytical, occasionally frustrated or incredulous, but always grounded in commitment to fairness and process.
• Noteworthy Style Choice: Both hosts explicitly separate their beliefs about Hubble’s factual guilt from the legal necessity of a fair trial. They also express empathy for the victim’s family and a healthy skepticism toward media “serial killer” narratives.

Final Takeaways

• The evidence against Jason Hubble is substantial and convincing.
• The trial process was tainted by detective misconduct, particularly through the suppression of potentially exculpatory evidence.
• Even the guilty are owed a fair trial—the case stands as a cautionary tale for law enforcement and a difficult but necessary affirmation of due process.
• The ultimate fate of Hubble, and of justice for Sharon Myers, now rests with the current prosecutor and the (possibly diminished) evidence more than a quarter-century later.
• The hosts commit to ongoing coverage, promising updates after the next hearing.

This summary provides a comprehensive yet clearly structured account of all major themes, evidence, controversies, and insights from the podcast, preserving the hosts’ voices and the nuanced ethical considerations at the heart of this true crime episode.