Testimony of sole witness in Lebanon PM murder case

Testimony of sole witness in Lebanon PM murder case Lebanese newspaper al-Akhbar has revealed important information relating to evidence on the sole witness in the murder case of former Lebanese PM Rafiq al-Hariri to the prosecution board which is being handled by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL).
In  al-Akhbar's view, the story built by the prosecution is totally dependent on the defendants' cell phone history and not on any direct evidence or testimonies. The prosecution has classified the cell phone lines alleged to be related to the crime into five networks: Red, Yellow, Blue, Green, and Purple. The first four networks were involved in a joint mission, while the purple network was only assigned for recruiting the alleged suicide bomber, Ahmed Abu Adas, as well as sending his notorious video tape to al-Jazeera and Reuters' offices in Beirut.
According to the prosecution's story, the purple network consisted of three members: Hussein Eneissi, Assad Sabra (their names were included in the first indictment list) and Hassan Maraie, whose name is expected to be included in the next indictment list.
In al-Akhbar's opinion, the prosecution's story specifies that "Eneissi, adopting the name of Mohammed, met Abu Adas two months before committing the crime and selected him to be the declared suicide bomber".
Abu Adas, a Palestinian man, who was 22 years old when he supposedly met a person called Mohammed in al-Huri Mosque in Beirut, had disappeared one month before the incident on the same day he was meant to have a meeting with Mohammed. By searching the history data of Hussein Eneissi's cell phone, it was concluded that he made no phone calls the day Abu Adas disappeared, which in turn supports the prosecution's doubts that Eneissi himself is Mohammed.
The prosecution's indictment decision concluded that Eneissi's network's role was limited to meeting Abu Adas and sending his video tape to the Beirut news branches.
The al-Akhbar newspaper disclosed that what is not included in the prosecution's indictment, is the testimony which the prosecution depended on in its conclusion that Hussein Eneissi and Mohammed are one and the same person, and according to the newspaper "this testimony is the most interesting part in the investigation".
Although the prosecution should deal with its only witness with maximum care and protection, it appears that  it has failed to keep its cards close to its chest leading to the leaking of the complete audio records of the witness's testimony.
According to the newspaper, the witness's full identity data is as follows:
Full Name: Ahmed Mahmoud Mohammed Lebdeh
Mother's Name: Hoda al-Baqqar
Nationality: Lebanese
Date of Birth: 13/4/85
Birthplace and registration number: Al-Nuri, 720
Address: Al-Behsas, Tripoli but moved to al-Daneya "for security reasons" in 2010
Job: Biology Teacher
According to the newspaper, Ahmed Lebdeh said that he met the person known by the name "Mohammed" in the same mosque in December 2004, during which Mohammed asked Lebdeh to teach him how to pray. Lebdeh specified a date with Mohammed but he was unable to go to the mosque on that day and never saw Mohammed after that. However after a week, Abu Adas, who used to do his daily prayers at the same mosque was never seen again.
Lebdeh decided to offer his testimony after learning from Abu Adas's mother, that her son had met a person called Mohammed, who was born to Muslim parents but grew up in a Christian orphanage, and he wanted to return to Islam. Abu Adas's mother clarified that her son told her he would go to meet Mohammed but never returned home.
In 2010, the international investigators met Lebdeh to show him some photos to establish among other things whether he recognised Mohammed. Lebdeh recognised Eneissi's photo, but the circumstances of his specified recognition were not mentioned, hence it is unknown whether Lebdeh had recognised the photo by himself, or whether he needed "some help" from the investigators to do so.
The al-Akhbar newspaper mentioned some points which may raise doubts about Lebdeh's testimony:
1- The few minutes in which Lebdeh had seen Mohammed is barely enough time for him to recognise Mohammed’s photo five years after the meeting. Specifically as the two photos which he confirmed were of Eneissi were not that clear, hence the difficulty of concluding that they belonged to the same person.
2- Mohammed's descriptions which were mentioned by Lebdeh in his statment to the international investigation committee in 2007, are markedly different to the verified features of Eneissi. Lebdeh described Mohammed as a man of around 25, white, shaven, wide blue eyes, no glasses, dark red hair and around 175 cm. However Eneissi has dark skin, black hair, dark eyes and was 31 years old in 2004.
3- Abdel Rahman Harb, Abu Adas's neighbour confirmed seeing the person called Mohammed twice with Abu Adas,  and mentioned a younger age and shorter version of Mohammed than Lebedeh's description.
4- Sheikh Taha Kanawati stated in his testimony of 2007, that Abu Adas told him of a person called Mohammed who had recently converted to Islam. He also asked him to give some religious lessons to Mohammed, but Sheikh Qanawati was unable to do so as he was due to travel abroad for several months. Sheikh Qanawati stressed that this conversation was in September 2004, three months earlier than the date which the prosecution built its story upon.
5- The Prosecution used Eneissi's cell phone history analysis, which showed he made calls from the same area of the mosque during the alleged time period of the witnessed meetings between Mohammed and Abu Adas. However Eneissi's friends and relatives have played down the importance of this evidence, stating that Eneissi already owned a trade office located in the same area so it was not unusal to seem him there.
In Al-Akbar's conclusion to the recent information it said it was  understandable if people are questioning the feasibility of spending tens of millions of US dollars on these investigations.