Whether the state court violated the federal due process clause when it ventured into the realm of mere speculation when deciding an insufficiency of the evidence claim

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED WHETHER THE STATE COURT VIOLATED THE FEDERAL DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WHEN IT VENTURED INTO THE REALM OF MERE SPECULATION WHEN DECIDING AN INSUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE CLAIM. This is an opportunity for the Court to clarify the difference between "inference" and "speculation" by addressing the following questions: A. When there were three people in the immediate vicinity of crime, is it an “inference” or "speculation" to consider Cardenas' mere presence as circumstancial evidence of guilt? B. Is it Cardenas' burden to provide law enforcement with a theory as to ; how N.L's injuries were sustained; and does Cardenas' implausible explanation as to that theory probative of guilt? C. When Cardenas expressed remorse for having the victim's mother over without his grandmother's permission, is this evidence of "consciousness of guilt" of N.L's assault? . D. Is it an "inference" or "speculation" to conclude Cardenas' "consciousness of guilt" for failing to call 911 when this omission equally weighs upon the victims mother? E. When "sand like particles" were found on Cardenas' sweat pants, and the lower court admits that "the physical evidence equally supports as inference that Cardenas did not get sand on his pants until he carried N.L. in the house" is it reasonable to conclude that this sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt? : . -i