rather a damp squib Im afraid, but I understand that an out of court settlement was reached late last year before a judgment was handed down and confidentiality clauses prevent the parties to the case discussing the settlement further. So it seems we will never know how a court might have decided on the evidence that was presented.
Some of you know that I was following the case (under the nom-de-plume spoompliM prior to STW ver 2.1) and posting brief reports of the technical evidence at http://spoomplim.blogspot.com/ and like many others was looking forward to hearing how m'learned had picked his way through the vast amounts of evidence to come to his judgement on the balance of probabilities.
As my parting comment on this I'll just say that while the case itself was to resolve historic events and their causes, at least the design changes that have developed over the years since (whether or not as a consequence of Russ' accident) such as forward facing drop outs and 20mm/15mm bolt through systems provide excellent alternatives for those that seek some comfort (although wouldnt it have been nice to see a common licenced 20mm standard eh?
As Mike Davis over on the other channel once said, "If any engineer sat down with a clean sheet of paper, they wouldn't come up with a design like the one we have for holding wheels into disc-equipped bikes."
The inertia of legacy systems and designs is strong, but despite the slow machinations of the world of fork/hub/brake development the days are numbered for the QR in sport MTBing regardless of their culpability or not. The arguments, however, may be longer lived!