How is the issue resolved if the perpetrator and the guardian dispute whether a wound healed before the killing?

Primary text

If the perpetrator and the guardian disagree about whether the wound healed before the killing, and the period between the injury and death was brief, insufficient for healing, the statement of the perpetrator is accepted without an oath. If they disagree about whether the sufficient time has passed, the statement of the perpetrator is accepted with an oath, as the default presumption is that the time has not passed. However, if the period was long enough for healing to occur, the statement of the guardian is accepted with an oath, because the cause for the blood money of the limbs was established by the act of severing, and the perpetrator claims the forfeiture of that due by the subsequent killing, while the default presumption is that it was not forfeited. If the perpetrator possesses clear evidence (Bayyinah) that the victim remained injured until killed, judgment is given in his favor based on his evidence. If the guardian possesses evidence of the healing, judgment is given in his favor. If the evidences contradict each other, the evidence of the guardian is prioritized because it affirms the healing.