I can only offer my opinion and the way I use these two terms in my writing.
I consider a fact to be an event that has transpired. Whether or not I can logically prove that an event has transpired has no influence on the nature of it as being a fact. Typically we identify facts through observation. That acceleration is equal to force divided by mass is a fact (observable event). That you bought a cup of coffee yesterday may be a fact, but whether or not it is a fact is independent of my ability to prove it.
Truth, on the other hand, is a bit more ethereal to me and may even be proven without observation. The truth of an assertion is typically evaluated by critical analysis of the argument for it rather than direct observation of facts (events that have transpired). If all humans are primates and you are a human then you are a primate. That statement is logically true independent of observation - there are no transpired events to observe, therefore no facts - just assertions and evaluation.
I'm not sure if this helps at all or only further confuses the issue but I thought I would take a stab at it.
I tend to look at these terms in a specific to global relation: thruth refers to a more large portion of reality. "The earth is round". When I'm, talking about facts I'm refering to all correct, real statements that are contained inside that truth and that MAY lead us to said truth, as in "If you run in a straight direction you'll end up in the same place".
Of course, and as Heather stated, facts can be directly observed and measured with more or less degree of error, contrary to truths, which are actually objective (there's only one reality), but how you perceive the truth based on the facts is subjective and caused by the imperfection of our intellect and measurements.
A fact is a fact. It's something which is the case. Truth is a quality applying to statements or assertion of fact. One is a state of being, the other a statement ABOUT being.
So, there is a huge difference.