It wouldn't make sense for the escrow to keep (or ignore) the BCH after the refunds are issued and the escrow wallet is no longer used.
Disagreed, as I always have on the fork debate (especially in cases where ToS/policies covers this beforehand).
If you mean ideological (de)merits of bcash etc - that doesn't really matter. There is a significant value in those coins that was not foreseen (I'm assuming) at the time when the escrow took control of the funds and the client(s) want (I'm assuming) to get those coins.
If my assumptions are correct then the client(s) did not have a choice - e.g. to choose an escrow with a more favorable view towards forks - and there was no way to have a ToS reflecting that so the escrow should make a reasonable effort to accommodate the client(s). What would be the reason not to?
Although discussing the principles of forking would be swaying away from this accusation.
It's among the many accusations in the OP and one that seems to have some basis in fact. Other stuff would have to wait for:
Even though the funds that are on it aren't significant in comparison (mostly part of what was last released to nemgun), they should be pooled back and having access restored would enable us to build a proper chain of events (with little to no vagueness). That said, nemgun keeps delaying this with various excuses. Today is the final day.