Trying to put words in my mouth again I see. I knew that was a loaded question, with follow-up responses ready to fire at me no matter what I'd answered, but I just couldn't resist. 
All I said was 'Alcohol had been cosumed'. Was that untrue? With or without alcohol, memories are fallible. Several people can watch the exact same event and then if asked to recount it, they will all give slightly different versions of how they remembered it. Especially if a question relates to something as specific as who was stood exactly where at a specific point in time during an event where you had no particular reason to pay attention to those kind of details.
All I was saying, is that cosuming alcohol (even a little) would have potentialy further inhibited recalling specific details such as that. What I was not saying was "Gerry and Jane were smashed off their faces and so we can't trust a word they say".
You seem to want the argument to be black or white. Either they were drunk and so we can't trust their accounts. Or, they weren't drunk and so any minor discrepancy in their accounts must be a lie.
You don't appear to be able to think objectively. You are quite happy to accept that after seeing Gerry on the news constantly for four months, Martin Smith can suddenly remember "that's the shifty looking man I saw carrying that girl in an odd way", but not that Gerry can't recall the exact spot of road he had a meaninless chit chat with his buddy.
Hypothetical question, if it turned out newly unearthed CCTV fototage proved that Jane did indeed walk past Jez and Gerry, and it then turned out that Jane Tanner goes and positively identifies CB as the man she saw and she says she is 90 percent sure (not just 60 to 80%), would you be so willing to accept her assertion as you do Martin Smith's?
It was you who brought up that the group’s perception may have been shaped by alcohol not me. If you don’t want something to be discussed can I suggest that you don’t use it as some sort of mitigation. If either Gerry or Tanner had consumed enough alcohol to perhaps dim their recall, as you suggested, how can any of their memories be relied upon?
TBH it’s not the fact that Gerry appears not to remember where he was standing I, like you, think there’s nothing suspicious in that. What is suspicious was the way he dug his heels in when two witnesses, one his friend, proved him wrong. Why chose that particular hill to die on?
As to your hypothetical question, I’m afraid I’ll have to answer the two parts separately. If there was CCTV that showed Tanner passing Gerry on that night then of course I’d accept that this had happened. I’d accept that I’d been wrong and crack on. As to Tanner identifying Brueckner I’d have to compare what she said when first describing the man she saw with Brueckner
For a start…from her rogatory interview Tanner described the man she saw as “ not six foot but taller than me but sort of not, but not, I’d say I think it was sort of about five foot nine, five foot ten.” Bruckner is just over 6ft.
From her first interview Tanner described the man she saw as a “dark skinned individual, male sex, aged between 35-40” Brueckner was very light skinned and at the time was 30.
“ Very dark, thick hair, longer at the back ”. Of course we know that Bruckner has fair, rather fine hair and just weeks before Madeleine’s his hair was short at the back.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/newsalerts/video-2219932/Video-Christian-B-drives-VW-campervan-just-weeks-Maddie-disappeared.htmlSo no I wouldn’t accept her assertion that the man she saw was Brueckner and I don’t think that you would either.
