Doyle told the court on Tuesday it was possible he had said sexual things to the children while drunk and talking about complainants having "big boobs".
"You might like to think about his behaviour and his sexualised behaviour around the children in the context of the charges and, perhaps, in the context of his lack of boundaries, if you like," Mr Mallalieu said.
He said there was "no real evidence" the three complainants had colluded to bring false charges against Doyle, and said "perfect consistency" between their stories would be a cause for suspicion.
Defence lawyer Stephen Ross said the Crown had "dished up" a "reasonable doubt cocktail".
Mr Ross pointed to one complainant's claim that Doyle had raped her the first night he met her.
He said Doyle would not have known how the girl would react, whether she would "scream the roof down".
Doyle would also be risking other people coming across them, he said.
Mr Ross also said the complainant was asked about how her body was after the rape, but the girl, who would have been about 9 when the incident allegedly happened, did not mention feeling any pain.
He said sometimes the complainants' stories did not match up, and said most of the alleged offending would involve Doyle "rolling the dice" most of the time on being caught.
The alleged offending would have happened while close to other people or in the same room as other people, who were sleeping, he said.
Mr Ross also pointed out how one complainant said she was confused about "knowing that it happened".
She later told the court her key points were correct but her confusion was around the order of events.
Judge Thomas Ingram will sum up the case today.
