The big picture approach to evidence that James Raper and Kermit allege is that individual assertions prove the validity of other individual assertions by how well they fit together even if none of them can be a fact proven on its own merits.
Guilters always claim that without whatever assertion posed without proof there is still plenty of evidence to convict even though each of the other pieces of evidence cannot be proved either.
It is certainly a whack-a-mole game instead of justice, and no matter how reasonable an alternative big picture the defense may find, guilters claim it is invalid because the courts rejected the possibility of any other view. And of course whenever a different possibility for what happened comes to light, guiltes claim it's a new alibi. If there's multiple innocent reasons that Amanda and Raffaele were not involved in Guede's crimes against Meredith, why does that make the allegations against them more valid?
Of course when it becomes obvious that the guilters' big picture is not a whack-a-mole game at all, it can be seen to be a weird IQ test where the courts distorted the facts to make them fit where they don't fit. The whole framing of Amanda and Raffaele falls apart when it's examined too closely.