What is the ruling when the possessor denies liability entirely, or denies that anything is owed, and then claims loss from secure storage?

Primary text

If the claimant alleges a deposit, and the possessor states, 'I owe you nothing' or 'You have no claim against me,' and testimony confirms the deposit or the possessor admits to it, but the possessor then claims it was lost from secure storage, the possessor's initial denial is accepted along with an oath, and there is no liability. This is because the claim of loss from secure storage does not contradict the testimony proving the deposit, as the loss of a deposit without negligence does not result in liability for the owner. However, if the possessor claims the loss occurred after the denial, or if testimony proves loss occurred after the denial, or proves the deposit existed at the time of denial, then liability is established because the act of denial imposed liability, treating the possessor as a usurper.