Be very careful when reading the answers given by these people. They know how to deflect questions, especially how to "parse" their answers. The attorney denied that Epps was a "Federal Informant", but that leaves open a wide range of other possibilities. See, saying he isn't a "Federal Informant" might very well be true. But, OTOH, how about if he was an informant for a Non-Federal Agency? How about if he was a "Voluntary Informant" to an non-government activity which then fed instructions and information in both directions to/from the real perpetrators. Then the (((lawyer))) says the key phrase "not to my knowledge". That covers a multitude of possible areas. Just because he "doesn't know" something (or says he doesn't know), does not eliminate facts from being present, it just gets him off the hook for that specific question -- it is less damning that saying "no comment" (which always means that the questions asked are on target). The only effective way to ask questions is while the subject is undergoing vigorous torture including electrodes to the testicles, smashing of the small bones in fingers, toes and hand, and using a razor knife to slice through nerve endings then pouring sulfuric acid on the wounds.