did not err when it determined a trial court, when evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence to support an innocent owner defense, must consider all the evidence and “identify the circumstances that make it reasonable to infer that the property owner had actual knowledge and did consent to the violation of the Drug Act.” 1997 Chevrolet, 106 A.3d at 870. This assessment must recognize the difficult burden on a property owner to establish a negative—that he or she had no knowledge or gave no consent. Indeed, courts have generally recognized the inherent difficulties in meeting this burden. See Commonwealth v. DeHart, 512 Pa. 235, 516 A.2d 656, 668 (1986) (noting the virtually impossible burden of establishing a negative); United States v. Wilgus, 638 F.3d 1274, 1288-89 (10th Cir. 2011) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ollie, 442 F.3d 1135, 1143
holding that absence of epidemiological evidence not fatal but makes his task to show general causation more difficult recognizing difficulty in proving conspiracy recognizing that proving a negative may be difficult recognizing inherently difficult task of proving a negative recognizing the jurys difficult task of separating substantive proof from impeachment evidence bearing solely on a wit nesss credibility