The answers to the first two sentences with direct and indirect causes then give you the answer to the third in part...I would think. However, I could say the reverse. They're all interelated at an educated guess.
I'm sorry but you are basically wrong. The outcome is in no way predicated on the original event.
I am absolutely certain that, if handed an aircraft at 7000 feet only a couple of miles from a suitable aerodrome, with no weather issues and in clear conditions, I could safely land it there. I'm sure you could too. Just close both throttles and enjoy the glide... because you have plenty of time.
The problems start when other considerations come into play, like, for example, returning to a particular airport, safeguarding one's job, and so on.
It reminds me of the crash of Charles Church and his Spitfire. He suffered a partial engine failure and elected to return to the field, trying to save the aircraft. He flew over several perfectly good fields on the way to airport... on the way to which he stalled, spun, crashed and died. An utterly pointless death. I was there and saw it.
When whatever failure happened in this most recent case, a landing with no further damage was perfectly possible. From there, the possible outcomes become progressively worse until you get to the end result that we now have. Which outcome happens is solely down to the decisions made after the failure (unless the failure results in an unrecoverable loss of control right at the very beginning). Those decisions are in turn influenced by the factors mentioned above.
Most pilots get that it is about maintaining control at all times, and always having options. That is where experience counts.
No problem with the second point. The first however makes me shake my head in wonder at this point.
I refer you to post 195 and 200 (and others).