I wish there were some aero guys contributing to this thread. It's interesting, and revealing, that a bunch of Airbus pilots hunched over their keyboards in the safety of their homes can argue so long and hard about the meaning of the various "laws"; imagine trying to figure it out in a cockpit headed toward the ocean. But the laws that really count in the end are the laws of nature and physics, and I think a lot of the commentary here has been lacking in understanding of the aerodynamics of a stalled airplane. It's much more complicated than just "brick". It appears that the wing is providing sufficient downwash, in spite of being "stalled," to keep a download on the horizontal stabilizer. If it were not, the airplane would pitch down naturally, because it is a conventionally configured airplane, it's not in a spin, its CG is not excessively far aft, and that's what they do. So the stabilizer is actually working. Furthermore, the wing, although largely stalled -- but note that the ailerons continue to be effective -- is still producing a lot of lift -- probably a CL of 1.0 at least -- but just with a ton of drag to go along with it. It's the drag that's making the airplane sink -- not lack of lift.
I'm just an amateur at this, but I've talked with a few experts and they all agree that it's highly unlikely that the airplane was in a stable "deep" stall. Much more probable that it was being held nose-high by its own wing and stabilizer.