Emily Rimel: Suspect pleads not guilty to murder & appeals kidnapping conviction

Here are some recent developments in the case against Lindsay Bruce, suspected in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of 5-year-old Emily Rimel from Columbus, Ohio.
From http://www.nbc4i.com/news/9441438/detail.html

Man Pleads Not Guilty To Emily Rimel's Death
Bruce Smirked, Smiled During Arraignment
POSTED: 4:17 pm EDT June 28, 2006
UPDATED: 5:52 pm EDT June 28, 2006
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The man accused of killing a 5-year-old girl
and dumping her body in a local creek made his initial court appearance
Wednesday.
Lindsey Bruce was arraigned on aggravated murder charges. He
pleaded not guilty, NBC 4's Nancy Burton reported.
INTERACT: Timeline of Events
SLIDESHOWS: Emily Rimel Big Walnut Creek Search
At times during his appearance, Bruce smirked and smiled. His
lawyer said his expression was a nervous smile and that his client realizes the
severity of the case.
Bruce, 25, was indicted after the skull of Emily Rimel
was found along the banks of Big Walnut Creek. He was already convicted of
kidnapping Rimel.
Bruce could face the death penalty if he is convicted. He
is already serving a 10-year sentence, the maximum sentence possible for the
kidnapping charge, NBC 4 reported.
Rimel was last seen inside her Madison
Township home in December 2004. The 5-year-old girl disappeared from her home
while Bruce, a family friend, was visiting.
Bruce was accused of raping her
after Rimel's DNA was allegedly found on his genitalia, NBC 4 reported. A jury
later found Bruce not guilty on the rape charge.
"He's scared, concerned,
but he's not shaken in his conviction that he is not guilty," said Chris Cooper,
Bruce's attorney.
Bruce declined bond, but his lawyer said he will consider
asking for a change of venue to ensure that Bruce gets a fair trial.
Watch
NBC 4 and refresh nbc4i.com for continuing coverage.

From http://www.nbc4i.com/news/9477449/detail.html:

Man Appeals Conviction In Kidnapping Of 5-Year-Old Girl
Decision Could Take Days
POSTED: 12:29 pm EDT July 6, 2006
UPDATED: 4:28 pm EDT July 6, 2006
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The man convicted of kidnapping a 5-year-old girl is
appealing his conviction.
Lindsey Bruce appeared in court Thursday morning,
asking a judge to grant a re-trial, NBC 4's Nancy Burton reported.
INTERACT: Timeline of Events
SLIDESHOWS: Emily Rimel Big Walnut Creek
Search
Bruce was convicted of kidnapping Emily Rimel. He is already
serving a 10-year sentence, the maximum sentence possible for the kidnapping
charge, NBC 4 reported.
He is appealing on claims of insufficient evidence
in his trial.
Rimel was last seen inside her Madison Township home in
December 2004. The 5-year-old girl disappeared from her home while Bruce, a
family friend, was visiting.
Bruce was accused of raping her after Rimel's
DNA was allegedly found on his genitalia, NBC 4 reported. A jury later found
Bruce not guilty on the rape charge.
Bruce's attorney did not appear in
court, but wrote that there are conflicting statements about the so-called
confession Bruce allegedly made while in jail.
The attorney also claims that
there is no physical evidence that Bruce kidnapped the child, and there were no
signs of a struggle.
In May, the skull of Emily Rimel was found along the
banks of Big Walnut Creek. Since then, Bruce has also been charged with murder.
Bruce's lawyer said that personal reasons prevented him from arguing his
case for his client.
It could take several days for the judge to reach a
decision.
Watch NBC 4 and refresh nbc4i.com for continuing coverage.

Of course there probably wouldn't be signs of a struggle, since Emily knew him! If it was before he raped her (and I still believe he did, jury or no jury), she wouldn't have had a reason to distrust him. If it was after the rape--which I think is the more popular theory--she was probably stunned and scared, and he could have taken advantage of that.
There's always of course a small possibility he really is innocent, but his lawyers are still going to have a hard time proving that. It especially doesn't look good because a) he was staying at her house that night (opportunity) and b) he was gone for a little while when she first disappeared. (I've been following Emily's case since the beginning.)
Time will tell what happens next. I suppose that's another trial where it'll be hard to find an unbiased jury.