"Eye witness" testimony, if unshakeable, can certainly be extremely significant, but only the person with the "eyes" can give first hand testimony as to what they saw.
Sure, Todd can state who he saw, when, and what he saw them doing, but once he claims that he was "eye witnessing" the thirty some odd persons in the audience for the entire several hour run, he automatically discredits his own "eye witness" testimony that he saw the entire run...one cannot watch both the entire audience and the run at the same time.
Only being an attorney adds to his credibility, the other items you mention are as irrelevant to the issue of his credibility as what he had for dinner.
Technically you are correct.
However, in real life I don't believe it works that way. You go before a judge and tell them you've been a regular at that pool hall for countless years and know all the usual suspects and he/she is going to allow it. You are giving me college exam answers.
Whether being an attorney helps the individual's credibility or not is up for debate -- but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
Lou Figueroa