One of our standard close reasons is
Questions about unresolved current events and issues currently under investigation by a court of law, government, or other similar investigative body are off-topic because there is insufficient data for a meaningful answer....
There seems to be some precedent that these sorts of questions do become on-topic after the investigation/case/adjudication/etc. has been completed, but the result then is that those findings are taken as authoritative.
Is it appropriate to question the findings of such an "investigative body" at a distant time after the conclusion of the investigation? That is, questions would be of the form, "At a sufficient time in the past, investigators charged with investigating allegations of P found that P was in fact the case. Were their findings correct?" For example, would a question like
In 1970, John Smith was found guilty of the murder of William Jones (source). Did he actually commit the murder or was he falsely convicted?
A murder case is usually notable, but is that sufficient to make the 1970 conviction into a notable, on-topic claim today, or would I need further evidence calling into question the original conviction (e.g. a 1983 interview in which one of the original witnesses recants their testimony, a 2005 academic article showing flaws in the bullet identification tests used in those days, etc.)?