Wait. You said it was the fact that past, unobserved events were the subject of inquiry that made something "metaphysical". Now you're saying that reviewing and drawing conclusions from evidence is "metaphysical".
Which is it? The latter would make ALL of science "metaphysical," since the logic of drawing inferences, or testing theories, is the same regardless of when the subject events occurred. (And, as noted by the jury example, the former would make many things considered purely rational to be metaphysical.
Unless there is a witness who can testify, the event is past and unobservable.
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).
I have explained this previously. It should not be a surprise to you.
And 'all of science' would not be metaphysical, as you claim. If an event can be repeated and observed (I drop the ball and it will hit the ground), it is not metaphysical. It is a concrete fact.
If you are opining on the positions of the planets millions of years ago, you are clearly applying abstract thought to a current observation (where the planet is today) and the conclusion is metaphysical.
Got it?