There seems to me to be a contradiction here in what is "fact" and what is "evidence":
(1) Things I can touch and see etc are evidences. From the evidence I can infer the facts.
(2) The jury's primary role is to determine the facts based on an evaluation of all the evidence the judge rules admissible.
You'll have to explain the contradiction.
1) I see some evidence. I use the evidence to determine a fact.
2) The jury is shown some evidence. They use that evidence to determine a fact.
Seems the same to me.
If one of these pieces of evidence had NOT been experienced by someone, then it would be fantasy, lies, delusion or something of that ilk.
Yes - obviously someone has to have seen the evidence to draw a conclusion. I can see a dinosaur fossil, but I cannot see that dinosaurs used to be living animals.