If ATC did pass the correct weather information, and recommendations were made to use RW30, then ATC did all they could to prevent the accident and cannot be held at fault.
Again, the official accident report clearly reports that, under cause and findings, ATC shared some of the blame. Here are some snippets from the report:
3) ATC did not offer AA331 the option of the RNAV (GPS) Rwy 30 approach (the flight plan showed the aircraft was RNAV capable.)
44) ATC runway surface condition reporting did not fully conform to the ICAO recommendations.
46) ATC did not alert the crew that no braking report had been received, as required by ATS MANOPS.
47) ATC did not inform AA331 that the runway was wet until less than five minutes before the aircraft landed.
48) ATC did not inform AA331 of the reported "heavy rain."
49) ATC did not assign runway 30, the into-wind runway, as the active runway, as required by ATS MANOPS.
50) ATC did not follow the ATS MANOPS in terms of active runway assignment, placing of Weather Standby, reporting of weather, and giving the arriving traffic a braking action report.
51) The Enroute and Approach controllers gave the AA331 flight crew estimated weather reports, and did not state this was ATC observed weather, not official weather reports.
52) Neither NMIA nor ATC had any specific procedures for conducting runway condition inspections during inclement weather , and disseminating this information to landing traffic, contrary to ICAO recommendations.
Granted, these look like "small potatoes" contributing factors and it remains important to realize that the flight crew's direct actions are what ultimately led to the accident. however, there remains a very good possibility that ATC could have been the ones to have broken one link in the chain, by adhering to approved ICAO procedures, that could have prevented the accident. That is why the flight crew were ultimately accepted into ASAP, as there was no intentional violations of FARs. I'm also going to repeat that the flight crew really underestimated the runway and weather conditions that night, due to inadequate reporting by ATC, that "set them up" for their fateful decision to land on 12. The rest of the decisions, such as Flaps 30, autobrakes 3, the long float, were clearly the flight crew's errors and are mentioned as such. But it must also be said that ATC helped set the stage, and that is why they are mentioned in the accident report as contributory causes.
As far as these gentlemen's qualifications and reputations, I wouldn't hesitate to put my family on their flights every day of the week and twice on Sunday. They are highly experienced aviators who made some bad decisions after the stage was set for them. We've all been in their shoes, however, the difference is that we were able to break a link or two on the chain and prevented the holes from lining up. There but for the grace of God go I. Apparently the FAA, NTSB and NASA agree as well.