I was interested to see the earlier mention of draining emulsified oil from the stern tube in Port. I was on one ship with a leaking stern tube seal where the Super was most insistent that we should shut off the header tank in Port and drain the emulsified oil from the stern tube by undoing the oil inlet pipe from the header tank to the stern tube, at the stern tube. In order to "Freshen up the oil", In my experience what then happened was that clean Sea Water then flowed into the outboard, lower end of the stern tube and displaced the emulsified oil into the Bilges, filling the stern tube with pure Sea / Dock Water making the situation worse rather than better.
I agree that the wear rate appears to be incredible and I find it very difficult to believe that that much wear happened in a couple of weeks, however I can not offer any evidence that would stand up in Court, only Gut feeling, the same as everyone else appears to have over this suggested wear rate. It appears most likely that there was a problem of oil loss and emulsification for months or years before the catastrophic failure that you describe. The records of oil consumption could be a key here, records of oil ordered and delivered and inventories if these are properly recorded of course. Although if the stern tube is using the same oil as the main engines it is difficult to prove where it went. Much easier if the stern tubes use a unique grade. But then if someone was trying to cover up excessive oil loss they would just chuck MELO in the stern tube, the MELO consumption is so large that an excessive stern tube consumption could be lost in it.
I imagine there are big insurance claims at stake here as well as the Engineers jobs being on the line.
I hope you can manage to find some evidence for what really happened.
It is always better to ask a stupid question than to do a stupid thing.