Here are things that I have a difficult time accepting:
I see what you’re getting at, and I can understand why Marco’s actions and behaviours initially drew attention. They’ve been thoroughly checked out, he’s been cleared, and the prosecution has rightly worked to contain the Marco and Tyson background noise in this trial so the focus remains where it needs to be - on Singh. Marco’s behaviours don’t amount to incriminating evidence; they’re anomalies that can be explained in ordinary ways.
Marco, Toyah's boyfriend, instead of joining Toyah on Wangetti beach, travels on to Port Douglas to walk another dog, which he loses, and spends hours looking for, and never finds The next day, someone goes the area where the dog was lost and plays a recording of Marco's voice calling for the dog and it appears in minutes.
That’s dog’s for you. Dog's behave unpredictably and an absence of success one day and sudden reappearance the next is not uncommon or suspicious. Mine will go off following a scent oblivious to the world and me, then respond quickly once the distracting trance is broken.
Marco and his friend go on a hike the day Toyah is killed, snapping photos, building an alibi that places Marco away from the scene of the crime.
Photos don’t prove innocence, but they don’t prove guilt either. Suspicion would depend on showing a motive to create a false alibi, which would mean falsifying evidence. Without proof of tampered timestamps or fabrication, this line of suspicion has already been disproven.
Marco made multiple calls to Toyah, but never sent her a txt message and didn't check his messages, which, he says, is why he didn't see the message from Toyah that she was going to pick up a man named Tyson Franklin (who was unknown to Marco) at Cairns airport. It was revelaed later that Toyah and Tyson had a secret romance of a kind.
Marco’s habits matter here. Some people just prefer calls and overlook texts, and that would probably fit with his known character. The Tyson link adds drama & complexity but doesn’t implicate Marco unless tied to motive, other evidence or opportunity. On its own, this looks like ordinary behaviour, not evidence.
Toyah's Father and her boyfriend, Marco didn't hear Indie barking when they were looking for her the night she was reported missing. The dog was later found tied to a tree and had wound the lead tight and short.
A dog restrained like that may be unable to bark loudly. Importantly, Indie would have witnessed Toyah’s attack and would have been highly distressed and in shock. So while Toyah’s father and Marco didn’t hear Indie barking, that doesn’t mean much. It is reasonable and consistent though with Indue being in shock due to both the physical restraint and the trauma she endured.
How was Rajwinder Singh able to tie Toyah's large dog to a tree. without a scratch or bite?
Indie was a trusting, good‑natured dog who was used to being handled. If she was suddenly restrained, she may have been more confused and distressed than aggressive. A dog tied tightly on a short lead can be immobilised without biting, especially if shocked or overwhelmed. Toyah would have been standing near her during the initial restraint so Indie may not have fought back due to confusion during a sudden, unexpected and chaotic moment.
Toyah's Father gut instinct was that Marco had soemthng to do with Toyah's disappearence as he confronted Marco at least twice before Toyah was found.
I found that intriguing too. Toyah’s father’s gut instinct led him to confront Marco, but instinct isn’t evidence. Marco was investigated and cleared, and the prosecution has contained that so the focus stays on Singh.
Marco's first response to hearing that Toyah was found murdered was to ask if there was any financial assistance available to help him pay rent on his and Toyah's dwelling.
My take is that Marco’s reaction most likely speaks more to his character and dependency on Toyah than to any direct implication in her murder. His first thought about rent and financial assistance gives us insight into how reliant he was on her in their shared life. In the shock of hearing devastating news, his response highlights his practical and dependent fear rather than anything incriminating. In fact, that dependency makes more sense as a reason for him to want to protect her, not harm her.
Just my thoughts.
www.abc.net.au
