I totally agree historians like to court controversy in order to shall we say to sell books I mean if it was all the same it would be I have read one guess I don't need to read the rest.This is both the frustration and the fascination of LBH for me.
You would be hard pressed to find a single event at LBH, even when described by eyewitnesses, that is in agreement on the details.
For example, and not trying to be grisly here, I would expect the description of the type and location of wounds on George and Tom Custer to be consistent and precise based on the number of people that saw their bodies. Yet reading Richard D. Hardorff's excellent 'The Custer Battle Casualties' one sees how they were found, the description of wounds, how they were buried, and who buried them differ in many eyewitness accounts. Even accounting for Victorian sensibilities to tone down the horror of their descriptions this is surprising to me. Though of course there is still heated debate on the nature of President John F. Kennedy's wounds by eyewitnesses.
There are many other like circumstances re: LBH which could be cited.
I've read that eyewitness testimony is not always embraced by trial attorneys for a similar reason; that many see and describe the same event very differently. Making you wonder if it is the same event. Though I have no idea if this is true.
Eyewitness Indian accounts are hazy at best many accounts directly after the battle are toned down I feel as they were afraid of repercussions by the US govt , However in the early 20th century we start to see embellished accounts as that fear ebbed.
A classic example of this is the Crows Nest where Custer's crow scouts claim to have advised him not to attack that was their account directly after the battle the Crow not wanting to take the blame for advising Custer wrong but as we all know that changed years later to them overwhelmingly convincing Custer to attack even egging him on and taunting him to attack.
This makes sense because the Crow did not know how many Sioux were encamped they also thought they had been spotted and the element of surprise gone , They were there for a reason to get rid of the Sioux and court the US into giving them their old land back simply not attacking did the Crow no favours just plain common sense imho.