This is an interesting "possible miscarriage of justice" case. It lacks the common elements of most of the "wrongfully convicted" cases such as new forensic evidence or problematic evidence introduced at trial. There are no glaring problems with the conduct of the trial so there has been no successful appeal and little chance of a new trial. What seems glaringly wrong is that the evidence against the defendant John Myers, seems to be absurdly thin.
There was no physical evidence, no ties to crime scene or links to the victim. There are even two " alternate" suspects couldn't really be ruled out.
The only real objective evidence was the fact that the victims bicycle was found near (3/4 of a mile in a rural area) from where the defendant lived and the defendant owned the same type of shotgun as is believed to be the murder weapon (a commonly owned firearm in the area). This isn't much at all.
What really lead to Meyers conviction was what might be called subjective evidence: people's interpretation of events that might not be inherently incriminating. In this case, some friends and relatives testified that he was acting strange in the days after Jill's disappearance, he expressed fear that he would be "blamed" for her death and he apparently told his grandmother that he had some bad "things" that could land him in prison for life. Is was never claimed that he ever confessed to anyone. You get the impression that there was suspicion within his family that he was guilty even before the investigation started looking his direction.
Apparently John was going through a difficult breakup with his girlfriend and that could either explain his strange behavior or provide the motive for the crime. John had some prior run ins with the law and he claimed that what some saw as fear of being charged in Jill's death was just his general fear that any time something happened in that county, he got blamed.
Any Criminal lawyer will tell you that family members testify against you, you're in trouble. A lot depends on how well the witnesses came across and how they stood up to cross examination. Without being there you can't really judge but somehow I don't see enough evidence to convict and the guy may very well be innocent.
It would be interesting to hear from anyone from the area that may be privy to what was really going on