What is the ruling when a claimant proves intentional homicide of his guardian using one male witness plus an oath, or one male witness and two female witnesses?

Primary text

If a man claims another intentionally killed his guardian and supports this with one male witness and two females, or one male witness and an accompanying oath, neither retribution (qisas) nor blood money (diyah) is established. This differs from theft because theft establishes both cutting and financial liability, meaning if one aspect fails, the other stands. Intentional killing establishes retribution as the primary obligation (in one narration), with blood money being its substitute, and the substitute is not obligatory unless the principal is absent. In another narration, since either retribution or blood money is obligatory without specific designation, neither can be fixed except through choice or impossibility, neither of which occurred.