In an appeal from the probate of a 2011 will, the Orphans’ Court did not err in refusing to probate a will allegedly signed by the decedent in 2014 when the proponent of the 2014 will was able to produce only an unsigned copy that she said she had prepared and which she claimed was signed by the decedent, the 2011 will was prepared by a lawyer who later represented the decedent in other matters and never knew anything of a later will, the testimony of the proponent of the later will and the witnesses she called to testify were not found to be credible by the court, and the unsigned will included provisions that did not make sense and did not conform to what the proponent said that the decedent wanted. The journal of the notary public who alleged notarized the 2014 will included an entry with a date in 2014, the name of the decedent, and “Will,” but the court did not err in finding the journal to be unreliable because the entry was in the handwriting of the notary’s daughter and not the notary, the notary had no memory of meeting the decedent or notarizing her will, and the date of the entry was a Good Friday, when the decedent’s restaurant would have been busy and the decedent was unlikely to have left in order to sign a new will. Because there was insufficient proof that a later will was signed, the court did not need to apply possible inferences or presumptions regarding the possible destruction or suppression of the will by the principal beneficiary of the earlier will who was alleged to have been in possession of the later will. In re: Estate of Shirley Maria Cavallo, 1369 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. 6/27/2025), (non-precedential).