immediately proceed to window #2, waiting instead until after he had obtained his business license. While George testified that people normally proceed directly from window #1 to window #2 when they register a vehicle, the People presented no evidence that tended to suggest that Mendoza actually went to window #2. No witness from the BMV testified that Mendoza actually presented any documents at window #2. Instead, the People rely on circumstantial evidence that Mendoza went to window #1 to prove that he also went to window #2. Concluding that Mendoza went to window #2 based solely on evidence that he had gone to window #1 would be nothing more than mere speculation or conjecture. See People v. Clarke, S. Ct. Crim. No. 2009-0104, 2011 V.I. Supreme LEXIS 11, at *17 (V.I. April 12, 2011) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Pettigrew, 77 F.3d 1500,
holding evidence must rise above mere speculation holding that mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard holding that because plaintiff has met defendants affidavit evidence with mere speculation plaintiffs request for  jurisdictional discovery  must be denied holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict holding that because plaintiff has metdefendants affidavit evidence with mere speculation plaintiffs request for  jurisdictionall discovery  must be denied