Hot-and-high, thank you so much for your informative post. I agree with you completly. When you talk about a stalled aircraft then it implies that the aircraft as a whole stalled, not only parts of the wing or a stabilizer. That's why I say it's completly nonsense to talk of a stalled plane. You can stall an aircraft in any speed (even at cruising speed).
So we are coming to the point of "high ROD". Of course it must have been higher than normal (so the passenger tell us). But it cannot be really high, otherwise there wouldn't be any passenger left to explain us. I stay with the version that this was a relative soft landing.
Rainboe, the tail hit the ground at a relatively early stage of the crash landing. Granted. That doesn't mean that it was a "tail strike" landing and it's associated low speed. It could also stem from the fact that during touchdown, the main gears where burrying themselves into the soft ground. btw we don't even know if the gear was out (although they most probably where). Good pilots also know that during certification flights, aircraft have to touch the ground with the tail and still able to fly (minimum unstick speed tests). And last but not least: The spot where the tailplane lies is most probably not the point of first impact into the ground, the traces must have started before - the landing "roll" was even longer than appears from the wreackage location.
I'm not here to discuss the reason for the accident. We simple cannot discuss it here because we have no clue. I just started to take part in the thread because some obvious facts are disregarded.
Flare-idle, my knowledge comes from the intensive lecture of accident bulletins and visits of actual crash sites. It is relatively easy to tell the ROD by watching the wreckage. Please compare similar accidents and look at aircraft that really were "falling from the skies", stalled or flew into terrain. Good luck.
So, please, I'm still accepting bets...