Final answer:
In an interview conducted by a Certified Fraud Examiner, deceptive indicators may include detailed and evasive responses, as well as defensive and accusatory behaviour. Reading body language and looking for non-verbal cues of discomfort can provide additional context but are not definitive proof of deception. Physiological measurements, such as polygraph tests, are not reliable due to the lack of a unique pattern for lying.
Step-by-step explanation:
When Baker, a Certified Fraud Examiner, is interviewing a person whose truthfulness is unknown and asks a direct, simple, and understandable question, certain responses may indeed be indicative of deception. A person providing a detailed and evasive response or becoming defensive and accusatory can be seen as potential red flags for dishonesty. While hesitation before answering could indicate a number of things, including nervousness or the need to recall information accurately, it does not necessarily indicate deception on its own. And if the response is consistent with prior statements, it could even suggest honesty instead of deception.
Contextual clues such as reading body language can also be instrumental when assessing truthfulness. If the subject avoids eye contact, appears to fidget or squirm, or exhibits other signs of discomfort, these non-verbal cues may suggest a lack of candor. However, it is important to remember that such indicators are not always definitive proof of lying. Lastly, we should be aware that while physiological responses can be measured by tools like a polygraph, their reliability in detecting lies is often questioned because lying does not have a unique physiological pattern.