The Watson and Kraft situations are not analogous IMO.
In one case, a person was upfront and forward about paying for a consensual sexual massage.
In the other case, a person has been evasive, unclear, and ambiguous, offering different accounts at different times, about requesting a seemingly regular massage, then insisting on sexual acts during it and refusing to back down if the feeling was not mutual. As a result of this, there are 22 civil suits.
In one case the nature of the "crime" was offering money for sex, in a context where the sex was agreed up, consensual, and expected.
In the other case the nature of the "crime" is insisting on having sex despite the other person not consenting.
Is paying for a consensual sexual massage a little seedy? Sure. Is a seedy (but consensual) sexual act some grave moral transgression? Not in my opinion.
What about insisting on sexual acts when the other party has indicated they are not interested? That's traumatizing, abusive, and generally terrible. Is a nonconsensual sexual act a grave moral transgression? 100%, absolutely.
Why would someone have 66 masseuses in a couple year period? Why would individuals who have remained anonymous and have not filed for any recourse, criminal nor civil, corroborate the accounts given, and provide consistent, detailed, specific allegations against Watson?
Are they all in on an evil plot to tank Watson? (If that was the case, it would very likely be uncovered during discovery when electronic communications are combed through; ditto for any massive plot for financial gain - you cannot coordinate a plan like that among a few people, let alone 20+, without a paper trail ... and yet zero evidence of fabrication/collusion has been brought forth).
I understand keeping an open mind and remaining skeptical in every instance, but the totality of the allegations against Watson, both in terms of scope and detail, are pretty damning IMO.