So if there is a witness to a past event, that witnessed-past-event somehow mutates into a present and observable event? (And note, eyewitness testimony is universally regarded as less reliable than physical, circumstantial evidence. Why do you suppose that is?)
And yes, drawing conlcusions from *facts* is metaphysical because it involved 'abstract thought'. The only way you can avoid this is to observe 'concrete evidence' (a fact).
A knife, a gun, a footprint, a fingerprint -- all are "concrete evidence" ("facts" as you would have it). How does observation of these "facts" mean anything in the absence of inference?
A fossilized dinosaur bone is "concrete evidence." Of what use is this "fact"?
In short, how do you "avoid abstract thought" by observing these "facts"? And of what use are these "facts" in the absence of abstract thought?
"And of what use are these "facts" in the absence of abstract thought?"
Obfuscation.