I think this boils down to the fact that if you look at historic proceedings the outcome seems obvious, because the details which make it obvious are the ones r

I think this boils down to the fact that if you look at historic proceedings the outcome seems obvious, because the details which make it obvious are the ones reported. There is a total bias to write what looks like a progressive narrative, when the reality is usually far from it. i.e. A->B and B->C then CLEARLY A->C. Except when A went to B, A could also have gone to D, E, or F, but you don't write about that, because clearly covering all your bases would be ridiculous, and it's generally difficult to evaluate the likelihoods of any options except B, where the likelihood of B is 100%.