Investigators say physical damage, a witness account and Elissa Waltman’s changing statements led to two criminal charges.

MILLERSVILLE, Pa. — A fresh indentation near the top of a staircase became a central piece of evidence after police found 63-year-old Eileen Flugrath bleeding at the bottom of the steps following an argument with her daughter.

Flugrath died in a hospital four days after the April 5 fall. Millersville Borough police later charged her daughter, 34-year-old Elissa Blair Waltman, with involuntary manslaughter and simple assault. Authorities allege Waltman pushed Flugrath into the wall, causing her to fall down the staircase inside her home in the 100 block of Pickwick Place. Waltman was denied bail after her June 11 arrest and was held in Lancaster County Prison. The charges are accusations, and Waltman is presumed innocent unless proved guilty.

Officers arrived shortly after 10:30 a.m. and entered the residence to find Flugrath injured and bleeding at the foot of the stairs, according to police. They gave her medical aid until an ambulance took her to a hospital. As officers examined the area, they noticed an indentation in the wall near the top of the staircase. An eyewitness told investigators the mark had not been there before the confrontation. Police have not publicly described its size, depth or precise location. They also have not said whether technicians photographed, measured or tested the damaged section. Even so, the mark gave investigators a physical detail to compare with the accounts they received about how Flugrath reached the bottom of the steps.

Waltman initially described the fall as an accident that occurred without physical contact, police said. She told investigators that she and her mother had been arguing when Flugrath backed up and fell down the stairs on her own. Waltman denied touching her mother and said she had only yelled at her, according to the police account. Investigators later said Waltman acknowledged pushing Flugrath. Police allege the push sent Flugrath into the wall before she went down the staircase. Authorities have not released a recording or transcript of either statement. They also have not said when Waltman’s account changed, what questions preceded the alleged admission or whether she gave the later statement during a formal interview.

A resident who lived on the building’s bottom floor gave police an account of what happened immediately after the fall. The resident reported hearing a crash and then finding Flugrath face-down at the base of the stairs. Waltman was at the top of the steps, cursing and quickly saying that she had not touched her mother, the resident told investigators. Police have not identified the resident or said that the person saw the alleged push. Based on the released account, the witness heard the impact and observed the scene seconds or minutes afterward. That distinction could matter because the witness may be able to describe the immediate aftermath without providing direct testimony about the first physical contact.

The indentation may help prosecutors connect the reported push to the fatal fall even though the publicly identified witness did not claim to see it begin. Investigators could argue that the new damage supports the allegation that Flugrath struck the wall before tumbling down the steps. The mark could also be compared with the location of her injuries, the stairway’s layout and the statements attributed to Waltman. Police have not released photographs of the wall, a diagram of the staircase or a reconstruction of the fall. The available account therefore leaves unanswered whether the indentation alone can show how much force was used, who caused the contact or whether the damage occurred exactly when Flugrath fell.

Flugrath remained alive after officers and medical workers removed her from the residence. She died April 9, four days after the confrontation. An autopsy found that she died from traumatic injuries to her head and neck that she sustained in the fall, according to police. Her death was ruled a homicide. In medical and investigative use, a homicide ruling means that another person’s actions caused the death. It does not decide whether a criminal offense occurred or whether a particular person is legally responsible. Those questions are addressed separately through charging decisions, court hearings and, when a case reaches that point, a trial.

Authorities did not arrest Waltman on the day of the fall. Lt. Jason Scott of the Millersville Borough Police Department filed the charges June 11, more than two months later. Police have not given a detailed explanation for the length of the investigation. During that period, detectives could review medical findings, compare witness statements and determine whether the evidence supported a direct link between the alleged push and Flugrath’s death. The public police summary does not identify security footage, cellphone video, forensic testing or another person who watched the argument from beginning to end. The announced case rests largely on the scene, the downstairs resident’s observations, Waltman’s reported statements and the autopsy findings.

The involuntary manslaughter charge reflects the type of criminal responsibility authorities say is supported by the evidence. Under Pennsylvania law, the offense can apply when someone causes another person’s death while committing an unlawful act in a reckless or grossly negligent manner. It can also apply when a lawful act is performed recklessly or with gross negligence. Prosecutors generally do not need to prove an intent to kill for involuntary manslaughter. They must still show that the accused person’s conduct caused the death and met the law’s required level of fault. The filing of that charge does not establish that prosecutors will be able to meet that burden.

The simple assault count focuses more directly on the alleged physical contact. Pennsylvania law allows a simple assault charge under several circumstances, including when a person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another person. The police announcement does not specify which portion of the statute prosecutors are relying on. It also does not say whether they believe Waltman intended to injure Flugrath or acted recklessly during the argument. The state’s exact theory may become clearer through the criminal complaint, testimony, court filings or later proceedings. A defense attorney could challenge whether a push occurred, whether it caused the fall or whether Waltman’s statements were accurately understood.

Magisterial District Judge Joshua Keller denied Waltman bail during her preliminary arraignment June 11, police said. She remained in Lancaster County Prison after the hearing. Authorities did not release Keller’s reasoning or describe the arguments presented by prosecutors and the defense. Bail proceedings address whether a defendant will remain in custody while a case is pending. They do not determine guilt. Judges may consider the nature of the accusations, possible penalties, community ties, prior conduct, public safety concerns and the likelihood that a defendant will return for future court appearances.

A preliminary hearing was scheduled for June 23. At that stage, prosecutors would not have been required to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. They would have needed to present enough evidence to establish a prima facie case, meaning evidence that a crime probably occurred and that Waltman probably committed it. A judge could then hold the charges for further proceedings, dismiss unsupported counts or take other action allowed by Pennsylvania procedure. The publicly available police release did not include the outcome of the scheduled hearing, and no plea or trial date was identified in the material reviewed for this report.

The difference between Waltman’s first reported account and her later alleged admission could become another major issue. Prosecutors may describe the change as evidence that the first statement was meant to distance Waltman from the fall. A defense could question the circumstances of the interviews, the wording used by investigators or whether Waltman was describing an intentional shove, a brief touch or some other contact during a heated exchange. No public defense statement has explained how Waltman intends to answer the allegations. Without a transcript, video or court testimony, the full context of the reported statements remains unknown.

The scene on Pickwick Place presents investigators with a narrow sequence of events. Police say a mother and daughter argued near the top of a staircase, Flugrath struck a wall, a crash drew the attention of a downstairs resident and officers later found her at the bottom. The witness described Waltman at the top of the steps, already denying contact. The damaged wall, the position of Flugrath’s body and the timing of Waltman’s statement are separate facts that authorities have combined into one theory. Each fact may be tested individually if the case advances, particularly because no publicly identified witness has said they saw the alleged push itself.

The case remained pending after Waltman’s arrest, with prosecutors relying on the wall damage, medical findings, a witness account and statements they attribute to her. The next publicly confirmed milestone was the preliminary hearing scheduled for June 23, though its outcome was not included in the available police announcement.

Author note: Last updated July 12, 2026.