It is always painful to read about children’s death, especially if the child is cruelly slaughtered; in fact, our society still views the people who offend minors as heartless maniacs abusing the most sacred and the most obscure value, the purity of childhood. Such stories barely leave anyone indifferent, and author Joyce Carol Oates created her short story “Where are you going? Where have you been?” affected by the piece of news from Life Magazine, narrating about a teenage girl, seduced and murdered by a strange man. The short story was first issued in 1966 in a journal and then was incorporated into The Wheel of Love, a collection of Oates’s narratives. Beyond the prominent, sometimes thrilling psychologism, the story also reveals the historical events associated with the murders of the 1960s committed by the so-called Pied Piper of Tucson. The present paper argues that whereas Arnold Friend is portrayed by Oates as a “superhuman” copy of Carl Schmid, the murderer, and the situation with Connie is partially sketched from the case of Alleen Rowe, Connie is actually a collective image of the three young girls Schmid abducted, molested and killed. First of all, it is important to note that the prototype of Arnold Friend in the short story is named Charles Schmid, the Pied Piper of Tucson. As Ramsland writes, “Dubbed “The Pied Piper of Tucson” for his ability to get girls to fall for him, he stood five feet, four inches tall, but added three more inches by padding his stack-heeled cowboy boots with rags and tin cans. He also dyed his reddish-brown hair black and applied a fake mole to his left cheek – a “beauty” mark” (Ramsland, 2008, par.3). Nevertheless, Schmid was a school champion in gymnastics until he was suspended from the educational institution for truancy and pathological lying. He originated from a wealthy family (Pearlman, 1989, p. 111; Schmid and Schmid, 2005, p. 58) and therefore surfed smoothly through life, turning it into a never-ending entertainment. The similarities between the reports about Charles Schmid and Arnold Friend are too clear-cut to be accidental. In particular, Friend’s victim, Connie, very quickly notices that the man has short stature (Oates, 2008, par.12). However, the girl also considers him physical and fit as well, as he had a “belt that pulled his waist in and showed how lean he was, and a white pull-over shirt that was a little soiled and showed the hard, small muscles of his arms and shoulders. He looked as if he probably did hard work lifting and carrying things. Even his neck looked muscular” (Oates, 2008, par.12). Oates’s description of the villain’s face was also taken from the photographs, which accompanied articles in national newspapers and magazines (Cologne-Brookes, 2005, p. 76; Scott, 2007, p.49). In particular, similarly to Schmid, Arnold Fiend had unshaved cheeks and glittering dark eyes. More specifically, the character also wears makeup; for instance, his eyelashes are unnaturally dark “as if painted with a black tarlike material” and, as Connie assumes, Friend might be wearing a wig (Oates, 2008, par.15). Friend’s face also seems to Connie like a mask, probably because of the generous layer of makeup the young man put on. In terms of behavior, Friend also employs the patterns Schmid was believed to use. For instance, due to his Napoleonic complex, Schmid tended to speak excessively loudly, as if he was addressing a cr