Hm. I hadn’t considered the thrift store angle. Considering it now, in my pre-caffeine state, this is what comes to mind: I don’t shop at thrift stores; but I often lunched with a coworker who did, and would stop into one or another thrift store fairly often on the way back to the office. I can’t say I’ve ever seen bellbottoms or Members Only jackets in one. This could mean that there’s a difference in thrift stores between New Jersey and Southern California, that the ensemble was put together over time after searching thrift stores for the items, that it was a Halloween costume, or that he didn’t get the clothes at a thrift store and they were the fashion at the time of the murder. If he was killed this century or near to it, he would have been a bit of a character dressing like that. One thing though: The afro-pick. I haven’t seen anyone use one since the early-1980s. I can buy someone buying vintage clothing (even bellbottoms) in the 1990s. But a hair style that needs an afro-pick? I’m not seeing that unless the murder took place in 1982 – and afros were a bit our of fashion even then. (I had a teacher in 1974 who put his blonde locks in an afro.) Of course, the comb could have been dropped by the murderer.
The Bulova watch would be a little unusual for a thrift store shopper, since it cost $500 new in 1960 and was a bit of a collector’s item by the time of the murder. A person who had that watch probably didn’t have to shop in thrift shops. The watch might be an important clue. (Or not, since they’ve had it since 2004.) Citizen bought Bulova in 2008, so records may no longer exist; but they might. It might be possible to find out who originally bought the watch. If the murder happened in 1982 and the victim was 55 years old, he may have bought it new in his early-30s. If he’d inherited the watch from his father, that would put him closer to 35 years old. A record of the purchase by his father would be a good clue to who the victim was. But are such records kept? I bought my GMT II new. Rolex would have a record of who the distributor they sold it to, and the distributor would have a record of they store they sold it to. The store obviously has a record of selling it to me, since I keep getting their ad mail. I wanted a vintage Sub, so that would be harder to trace through the purchase; but it’s been sent to Rolex for servicing, so that should make it easy. Rolex seems to keep track of the watches they make. I wonder if Bulova does/did?
Here’s the thing about a vintage watch: Given a population of watch-wearers, they’re not going to be especially common. I often wear the 1979 Sub or the 1974 Seiko Bell-Matic. But I’m a weirdo. Who would wear a 1960 Bulova? The victim was 35 to 55 years old. If he was 55, he may have bought it new and kept wearing it because he spent a lot of money on it and wanted to get his money’s worth. (Or he liked it generally, or for another reason.) If he was 35, he may have bought it in the early-'70s. Or he may have been killed much later, and he liked to dress in early-'80s fashions and wear vintage watches. Or the guy may have stolen it. Digital watches were all the rage in the late-'70s, and I think a younger person would be less likely to wear a vintage watch. A 35-year-old? Maybe. But I think he might have wanted something more ‘modern-looking’. (Heh. Says the guy who wears the watches he does because they’re old-fashioned! 
) In any case, it’s an odd watch to be wearing for someone who was wearing a then-hip Members Only jacket. It strikes me that it’s odd that a Members Only hipster would be wearing bellbottoms.
How’s this? The guy was short. Very short. If he wasn’t a jockey, he might have had some emotional issues and tried to ‘dress cool’. He didn’t get the memo that bellbottoms were on their way out in the mid-'70s, but he did notice young hipsters wearing MO jackets. He somehow obtained a nice watch, thinking it a status symbol. If the comb didn’t belong to the murderer, a 'fro might have seemed hip to someone who would wear bellbottoms in the early-'80s. I get the impression of a socially awkward guy trying to he The Cool Guy (Hit: Members Only jacket; Miss: out-of-style trousers) with Money (not-inexpensive watch). Someone that disconnected either just didn’t care, or he might not have travelled in ‘successful’ circles. I’m guessing he was in the lower half of the 35-55 age range, was single, and had a lower income. He might have gone out to a bar or a party, and pissed off the wrong person. Since he had his nice watch, robbery might not have been a motive. Maybe he had been carrying drugs, and was killed for them?
In any case, I think 1982 is in the ballpark. The age of his watch, the 1974 dime, and the bellbottoms make me think it couldn’t have been much later. Perhaps the Sri Lankan company’s records are incorrect. Members Only jackets came to the U.S. in 1980, so the murder couldn’t have happened before that.
