Navy sailor who vanished from Virginia barracks found dead, another sailor held in her death

A body has been found and confirmed to be that of missing Navy sailor Angelina Resendiz, and another sailor is in pretrial confinement in connection with her death.
Resendiz, 21, was last seen the morning of May 29 at her barracks at the Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia. Virginia State Police issued a critically missing person alert for her last week.
A body discovered by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) on Monday in a wooded area in Norfolk was confirmed to be Resendiz by the local medical examiner on Tuesday.
A Navy sailor, who was not identified, has charges pending under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the NCIS said.
"NCIS remains committed to uncovering the facts surrounding the tragic death of Seaman Resendiz to ensure accountability and justice," the department said. No further details were released and the investigation is ongoing.
The Resendiz family said her disappearance has 'left a void in their hearts' and they 'refuse to let her suffering be in vain,' a spokesperson for the family told NBC affiliate WAVY of Norfolk.
'The family is calling on the assistance of the United States government, Senator Mark Warner, Senator Tim Kaine, the Hampton Roads congressional delegation, home congressman Vicente Gonzalez, and President Donald J. Trump to address the systemic issues that allowed her to vanish without justice since May 29, 2025,' the statement said.
Resendiz's mother, Emeralda Castle, was not notified that her daughter vanished through official channels, the spokesperson said.
"Her daughter's colleagues, friends, and even authorities knew she was missing, but the response was minimal, and after her friends filed a missing person's report when her commander would not, they showed little compassion or understanding," the statement said.
The family is calling for Congress to investigate Resendiz's death and for reform within the Navy's notification protocol.
The NCIS statement said it investigated the case as soon as the agency learned of her disappearance.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time​ Magazine

9 hours ago

• Time​ Magazine

The Lavender Scare and the History of LGBTQ Exclusion

This month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the Navy would rename the USNS Harvey Milk, named after the assassinated gay-rights icon, Navy Veteran, and San Francisco politician. The decision is the latest in a series of actions by the Trump Administration during its second term that reflect a broader rollback of LGBTQ rights. Since January, the administration has reinstated a ban on transgender military service members, which the Supreme Court has allowed the administration to implement while legal challenges wind through the court system; has ordered the federal government only to recognize two sexes; and has sought to bar transgender athletes from participating in women's sports. According to Gallup, since 2022, Republican support for same-sex marriage has dropped from 55% to 41%. The rollback of LGBTQ rights and inclusion echoes an often overlooked, but deeply consequential, chapter of American history: the Lavender Scare. During the Cold War, U.S. officials branded gay and lesbian Americans as national security threats, fueling a moral panic that reshaped American society and stigmatized countless individuals. The legacy of the Lavender Scare era continues to influence America's culture and political landscape. The Lavender Scare emerged in the early 1950s alongside the Red Scare. But while Red Scare proponents like Senator Joseph McCarthy and others linked homosexuality to communism, the campaign against LGBTQ Americans operated on distinct ideological grounds. A 1950 State Department memo, titled 'Problem of Homosexuals and Sex Perverts in the Department of State,' linked tolerance of 'homosexuality with the accompanying decline of the Egyptian, Greek and Roman Empires' and argued that the United States, as the modern global power, had to purge gay and lesbian individuals to survive the Cold War. The State Department took heed of such harmful, and ahistorical, rhetoric. Read More: The Military's Unexpected Role in Building San Francisco's LBGTQ+ Community That same year, Deputy Undersecretary of State John Peurifoy testified before a Senate subcommittee that while no communists were employed at the State Department, the department had ousted various individuals considered security risks, including 91 people the department deemed homosexuals. Rather than calming fears, Peurifoy's testimony intensified public anxiety. White House Cabinet meetings followed up on the supposed security threats of homosexuality. Newspapers ran stories highlighting the imagined security risks posed by gay and lesbian government workers. Politicians brought the issue to House and Senate floors and committees. On the House floor, Rep. Arthur L. Miller, a Republican from Nebraska warned that while there were 91 of them dismissed in the State Department, there were 'several thousand" more LGBTQ workers employed by the Federal Government. 'I sometimes wonder how many of these homosexuals have….been in sensitive positions and subject to blackmail,' he asked, asserting that "the Russians are strong believers in homosexuality, and that those same people are able to get into the State Department and get somebody in their embrace.' Miller argued that Russian agents could seduce gay and lesbian federal workers in order to blackmail them, exploiting their fear of being outed to force them to betray the United States. 'These people are dangerous. They will go to any limit," summarized Miller. "They are not to be trusted and when blackmail threatens they are a dangerous group.' Officials across the government and journalists repeated the suggestion that Soviet agents could threaten to out, or blackmail, gay and lesbian government workers if they refused to collaborate. Yet, no evidence ever surfaced that any gay or lesbian government worker had betrayed the U.S. under duress. Nonetheless, in 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10450, declaring 'sexual perversion,' a euphemism for homosexuality, a national security risk. The order authorized invasive investigations, surveillance, and dismissals across federal agencies and the military. By the end of the decade, an estimated 7,000 to 10,000 individuals accused of being homosexual had been fired or forced to resign, often ruining the lives of dedicated civil servants. But the Lavender Scare spread far beyond the federal government. With discrimination being not only encouraged but legal, businesses increasingly refused to hire queer people, stripping them of dignity and opportunity without any legal recourse. Municipal governments and postal authorities cracked down on queer literature. Newspapers, magazines, and tabloids often tied homosexuality to criminality and even equated queer people to pedophiles and murderers. Some newspapers even published the names and addresses of those arrested for consensual same-sex acts, leading to job loss, public shaming, and, in some tragic cases, suicide. Read More: The Miami Museum Showcasing LGBTQ Histories The anti-LGBTQ campaign also reshaped the cultural norms of minority communities. Many working-class Black neighborhoods before the 1950s had a culture of queer acceptance. Harlem's drag ball culture, for example, thrived from the 1920s through the early 1950s. Transgender people, drag queens, and drag kings participated openly in public life. Black newspapers and magazines promoted drag balls as community events in Harlem and other places such as Chicago, Washington D.C., and Baltimore. As the Civil Rights Movement gained momentum, however, many Black leaders embraced white, middle-class norms—including heteronormativity—as a strategy for advancing desegregation and civil rights for the larger Black community. Bayard Rustin, an openly gay Civil Rights leader and the organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, was often sidelined from playing a more prominent role in the Civil Rights Movement because of his sexuality, despite his political talents. Even Martin Luther King, Jr., while hiring Rustin as a close advisor and collaborator, began to publicly distance himself from queer people because, as Rustin observed, it became 'a problem for the movement.' Rustin noted King's other advisors 'felt I was a burden.' To insulate King from critique, Rustin chose to resign from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference although he remained a close collaborator of MLK. The influence of the Lavender Scare on Black leaders' public perception of queer people is evident in an advice column King wrote for Ebony. In 1958, an advice seeker reached out the magazine, writing: 'I am a boy, but I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls….Is there any place where I can go for help?' With generally sympathetic words, at least for a national leader during the Lavender Scare era, King responded, 'Your problem is not at all an uncommon one….The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired.' King went on, 'I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you.' He assured the writer, 'You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.' By the mid-1950s, publications like Ebony, as evident with King's advice column, shifted from covering and celebrating Black queer culture to emphasizing Black nuclear families, military service, and economic mobility. During the late 1960s the narratives surrounding the Lavender Scare began to unravel under queer liberation movements. Black and Latino activists played a central role in increasing the visibility of LGBTQ communities, bolstered by advocacy from organizations like the Civil Liberties Union. In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that homosexuality could not justify terminating federal employment. Two years later, in 1975, the Senate disbanded its investigative committee targeting LGBTQ federal workers. While LGBTQ rights saw little advancement during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, this changed in 1994 when President Bill Clinton Administration's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy ended the outright ban on LGBTQ military service, even if enforcing silence. The next year, Clinton issued an executive order ending the Lavender Scare-era practice of denying security clearances based on sexual orientation. By 2011, queer people were allowed to openly serve in the military. Finally, in 2017, President Barack Obama entirely nullified Eisenhower's 1953 Executive Order 10450 with his own executive order during his last days in office. The Lavender Scare devastated the lives of queer people and for decades redefined American ideas of citizenship and belonging along narrower parameters. Today's political efforts to purge queer people and curtail their rights are not new—they are part of a longer history of exclusion and marginalization. Understanding that history is essential to confronting the present. Joel Zapata is an Assistant Professor of History and Cairns K. Smith Faculty Scholar at Oregon State University. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.

American Military News

16 hours ago

• American Military News

US representatives, union workers warn ‘critical' Boston Ship Repair vanishing without investment, work

U.S. representatives and Boston Ship Repair workers gathered at one of the country's few remaining large dry docks in the Seaport on Monday, calling for investment and support for U.S. ship building and repair as the facilities struggle to survive overseas competition. 'Let me be clear, if immediate action is not taken by our federal, state and city agencies, this year, this facility will face the same fate,' said Boston Ship Repair CEO Edward Snyder, citing the closure of the company's shipyard in Philadelphia. 'We will become a once-talked-about graveyard with a history but no future.' Rep. Stephen Lynch of Massachusetts, along with Rep. Joe Courtney from Connecticut and Rep. Jared Golden from Maine, all Democrats, called for 'urgent investments' in facilities like the Boston dock supporting U.S.-based ship building and repair industries. Flanked by a hulking gray-and-black vessel docked in the facility's basin over 1,000 feet long, the politicians, union and company leadership called the movement of work critical to military and commercial vessels a threat to the local economies and jobs, as well as the country's national security. As layoffs hit the industry, Boston Ship Repair has shrunk from about 300 workers to now just 60, IAM Union Eastern Territory General Vice President David Sullivan said. About 80 U.S.-flagged ships are currently engaged in international commerce while China has more than 5,500, Sullivan said, calling on Americans to 'pay attention to these numbers.' 'It was facilities like this that allowed us to build and repair a Navy that preserved democracy when democracy hung in the balance,' said Lynch. 'That is our role, and we are losing that capacity here in this country.' The group expressed support for U.S. Trade Representative penalties on Chinese ships, pushed by the Trump administration, and incentives related to U.S.-built vessels. They also heralded the SHIPS for America Act introduced in Congress, aiming to rebuild U.S. shipyard infrastructure. There is need for oversight in the work distribution, Golden said, noting that the Boston facility only sees 60% to 70% utilization while others face a backlog of repair work. 'When the shipyard is empty, our members get laid off,' said IAM Union Local S25 President Andre Lavertue. 'Too often we see younger workers get let go and never return to work. These jobs need to be secured, and we need consistent, efficient use of our shipyard here at home.' Rep. Courtney noted the 'hypercompetitive environment in Washington' in terms of funding priorities but the bipartisan support for the issue. 'We're in the process now of writing the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act, the 2026 budget, which Jared and I can tell you needs a lot of work in terms of what's been given to us by the administration,' said Courtney. 'But again, I'm an optimist that, with the right partnership and the right coalition of forces, this is an issue that rises above partisanship in terms of what the nation needs.' ___ © 2025 MediaNews Group, Inc. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Yahoo

19 hours ago

• Yahoo

New information on Norfolk sailor's death, name of suspect revealed

CHESAPEAKE, Va. (WAVY) — The sailor in pre-trial confinement in connection to the death of Seaman Angelina Resendiz's death has been identified by the attorney for Resendiz's mother. There was an initial review officer's hearing at the Naval Consolidated Brig in Chesapeake, where Resendiz's mother, Esmeralda Castle, spoke. Attorney Marshall Griffin, representing Castle, was not at the hearing, but 10 On Your Side spoke to him exclusively, and he confirmed the name of the accused sailor as Jermiah Copeland, who he said will stay in pre-trial confinement due to the seriousness of the charges. NCIS: Body confirmed as missing Norfolk Naval Station sailor; Navy sailor in confinement 'The Navy confirmed that Jeremiah Copeland is the person being detained or confined, on suspicion in this case,' Griffin told 10 On Your Side. Griffin pointed out what needs to happen as the case moves forward. 'The government just has to show that a crime occurred and that there's some evidence that the accused committed the offense,' Griffin said. 'So the process at this stage is kind of built with the understanding that the government is not going to have what I would call a final charge sheet yet.' The initial review officer's hearing determines whether there is continued pre-trial confinement in the case. 'It is distinguishable from, like, bond hearing, because there's no amount of money,' Griffin said. 'It's not about money. The independent reviewing officer is considering criteria to determine whether the individual is a flight risk, or they're likely to engage in other misconduct, and consider the government's evidence whether a crime actually occurred.' Griffin said the specific charges against the sailor are not yet known, and that is still to be determined from the on-going investigation, and the evidence. 'They're probably going to look at cell phone records,' Griffin said. 'They're going to look at anything they have to try to learn more about the relationship, the involvement of other people, to the extent they have any evidence of that.' Castle read a statement by telephone during Monday's hearing, saying 'the person responsible for this horrific loss made deliberate choices that ended Angie's life. Their actions were not a mistake. They were a betrayal of trust, of duty, and of basic human decency.' Said Griffin: 'Obviously, the family is very concerned about the way it was handled, the circumstances that this person, may have been brought into proximity to the victim.' What happens next? 'So, once someone goes into pretrial confinement, the government has 120 days to arraign them,' Griffin said. 'Within those 120 days, they need to hold an Article 32 hearing if they're going to take him to a general court martial, which is the most serious.' Griffin said explanations for any slow response by the Navy to the missing sailor were because it thought it was case of Resendiz leaving voluntarily. 'From what I understand, the Navy's initial reaction was that it was an AWOL case that she had left voluntarily,' Griffin said, 'and that reaction appears to have maybe slowed things somewhat.' Griffin says the family is focused on justice and accountability for anybody involved, 'How did this happen? Were the notification procedures that were in place, were they followed? Did the people who were in place report this, detectives, did they do their jobs? We want to know the person who's responsible for actually hurting her,' Griffin said, '… and any people who were assisting.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.