After the verdict, the reporter interviewed Liu Xianquan, a professor at East China University of Political Science and Law. He believes that the "intentional injury crime" and "negligent death crime" proposed by the defender are difficult to establish.

First of all, when Lin Senhao carried out the obvious harm, it was actually very clear about the occurrence of the result, which ruled out the possibility of holding a negative attitude towards the harmful result.

Secondly, it took Huang Yang a long time from poisoning to death. In the meantime, if Lin Senhao holds a negative attitude towards the harmful results, as long as he tells the truth earlier, the consequences of Huang Yang's death may not happen. However, Lin Senhao did not take any measures. "Finally, he calmly waited for Huang Yang's death, and his subjective malignancy was really high."

Liu Xianquan emphasized that "intentional injury" in the crime of intentional injury usually occurs under direct intentional circumstances, such as cutting the victim's non-vital parts with a knife. In this case, Lin Senhao used deadly poison to attack the other side, so subjectively, he can't just have "clear intention of harm".

As for "negligent death", Liu Xianquan also disagreed, because Lin Senhao had obvious harm in this case, which eventually led to Huang Yang's death.