I dunno... seems pretty subjective and sketchy to me.

Not to mention, right in the beginning they get two guys to fill out a test - look at one say "he's telling the truth, so the other guy must be the culprit" (yes, it's slightly more complicated than that, but it's pretty damn close if you read the article...)

He noted that while summarizing the day Hernandez disappeared, Joyner had not used the word “I,” writing, for example, “went home,” not, “I went home.” “That in itself is a signal of deception,” the detective wrote. Instead of writing “my girlfriend,” Joyner had written “a girlfriend.” What’s more, the detective wrote, Joyner’s handwriting was larger and more spread out in the answer’s last two lines than in the previous seven.

When asked why the police should believe his answers, Joyner had written, “I have nothing to hide.”

“This is not the same as stating I did not lie,” the detective wrote.

Using semantics and subjective psychology to try and "win", rather than step back and not-take the "I am automatically right" & "Some people can be different from a "one-size-fits-all-biology" position - is a common tactic with scummy people... lawyers, criminals - you know, people trying to get away with something they know is wrong/immoral, so they know ALL the loopholes... those kind of people.