If I remember well, in the documentary "United States vs James Bulger" the defense tried to prove he wasn't an informant, while the FBI insisted he was. Because if he was an informant, the FBI could try to "justify" their giving him considerable freedom of action by saying "oh well, at least he was useful because he gave us information to put away criminals more dangerous than him". On the other hand, if he wasn't an informant, it makes the FBI look even more like shit, because that would mean they covered up and took bribes for a criminal who even didn't help them to make arrests and solve cases, meaning they would look like dirty/crooked ones, plain and simple, who did help Bulger purely for financial gain or personal favors.