Since when has any suffix besides -'e' been legal on either  noun which is the subject or object of a relative verb? Did Okrand change his statement that he couldn't make it work as anything but subject or object and I missed it?

I think you've misunderstood what Okrand was saying. <http://klingonska.org/canon/1995-06-holqed-04-2-a.txt> Lawrence's question was "We know that the head-noun of a relative clause can be the subject or the object; the question is, can it be any other case?" He means the head noun can be the subject or the object of the relative clause, not the main clause.

When Okrand said "I couldn't make the -bogh thing work for me with anything other than subject or object," he means the head noun couldn't be, for instance, a locative attached to the relative clause.

That's the "ship in which I fled" problem. You can construct a relative clause around a ship that does something or a ship which has something done to it, but you can't construct relative clause around a ship in which, for which, or because of which something is done.

Good:

mutlha' Duj vIjunpu'bogh
The ship which I evaded chases me.

mutlha' mujunpu'bogh Duj
The ship which evaded me chases me.

Bad:

mutlha' DujDaq jIjunpu'bogh
The ship in which I evaded chases me. (NOT ALLOWED)

But the following works fine, because the head noun, though a locative for the main clause, is still just the object of the relative clause:

DujDaq vIjunpu'bogh jIghoq
I spy aboard the ship which evaded me.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name