"The fact that he slept with the victim and his knife had blood was enough evidence for him to be the culprit."
Why does it seem like you never use the plural "facts" in these sentences even when you're referring to multiple facts?
"The fact that he slept with the victim and his knife had blood was enough evidence for him to be the culprit."
Why does it seem like you never use the plural "facts" in these sentences even when you're referring to multiple facts?
The fact that is not a constituent, so it can't be singular or plural. What is singular is the noun fact.
That is the introduction to a conjoined clause (that he slept with the victim and his knife had blood),
which modifies fact.
That whole noun phrase
is singular (because fact is singular and it's the head noun of the noun phrase).
One could also say
since there are two facts. But, just to be clear what's being pluralized when using the plural, I'd repeat that after and, and maybe add a comma.
According to the Oxford Dictionary1, the word 'Fact' is a mass noun.
Wikipedia2:
In linguistics, a mass noun, uncountable noun, or non-count noun is a noun with the syntactic property that any quantity of it is treated as an undifferentiated unit, rather than as something with discrete subsets
This is why you rarely see the word 'fact' pluralised.