I’m always one to relish local eats, adventures, and unexpected experiences from around the area. I kept hearing whispers through the grapevine about a legendary psychic medium out of Portsmouth, a woman in her 70s who people swore is crazy accurate with her intuitive abilities.

And after multiple recommendations from locals, I knew I had to meet her.

Her name is Betty Lipton.

Around the Seacoast, Betty’s name (the “Portsmouth Psychic”) seems to travel in an almost folkloric way. Nobody hands you a business card, but they’ll most certainly mention her and the specificities of their reading that left them with goosebumps.

That alone intrigued me.

In an era where every self-proclaimed psychic has a social media brand and a neon storefront, Betty feels like a relic. The kind of local legend whose reputation was built slowly, person by person, reading by reading, over the course of decades.

Now approaching her late 70’s, she’s reportedly spent most of her life working as a psychic medium but has always known about her gift since childhood. First living in New York for a good portion of her early adult life, she now resides along the seacoast.

According to an interview with WMUR, Betty says, “she’s spent more than 40 years helping locals find clarity, comfort and, above all, connection.”

So on a whim, I called Betty to book an appointment and to my surprise, she had a cancellation that day. Coincidence much?

Found at the heart of Portsmouth, Betty has her own office with a beautiful waiting area for those coming in groups.

I spent 45 minutes with her reading my palm, channeling my energy and inner thoughts and even having a visit from my grandmother (who, to my surprise, is watching over me). And although I won’t disclose intimate details about my read, I will say that she knew details about my life that you certainly wouldn’t find on the internet!

I’ll give you a quick example… Betty told me my daughter would have children who would call me “Mimi”. Ready for the freaky part? My toddler had JUST started calling my mother Mimi this past week.

READ MORE: This Inspiring Free Portsmouth Exhibit Spotlights Christa MCauliffe, 39 Other Trailblazing NH Women

Meeting Betty Lipton started to feel less like booking an appointment and more like a crazy coincidence. As a firm believer of signs and “meant to be” moments, I can vouch that she will help you gain clarity or give you reassurance from a loved one.

A 21-year-old New Hampshire woman was arrested after she allegedly drove the wrong way on Route 101 and collided with a responding state trooper’s cruiser.

State police say Cassandra Aldecoa, of Dover, is facing felony charges of reckless conduct, second-degree assault, and criminal mischief, as well as misdemeanor charges of aggravated driving under the influence and driving under the influence.

There were multiple calls to state police around 1:47 a.m. Sunday reporting a Nissan Kicks that was traveling east in the westbound lanes of Route 101 in Exeter.

Trooper Shane McClure was among those to respond, when he encountered the Nissan between Exits 8 and 9. According to state police, McClure made the decision to place his fully-marked state police cruiser in the path of the wrong-way driver in an effort to end the possibility of tragedy to anyone else.

His cruiser was then struck by the Nissan.

Authorities said Hernan Marrero was driving the wrong direction on Route 1 in Lynnfield when he hit Massachusetts State Police Trooper Kevin Trainor.

McClure, Aldecoa, and her passenger, identified as 21-year-old Zachary Lapierre, were all evaluated by medical personnel, and it was determined they did not have any significant injuries.

Lapierre, of Lebanon, Maine, is also facing misdemeanor charges in connection with the crash, including disorderly conduct, contempt, and violating conditions of release. Aldecoa and Lapierre were both held on preventive detention and are scheduled to be arraigned in Brentwood District Court at 11 a.m. Monday. It’s unclear if either one has obtained an attorney.

An investigation is underway, and anyone with information that could assist state police is asked to contact Trooper Cameron Vetter at Cameron.S.Vetter@DOS.NH.GOV.

The future of a “campus carry” law in New Hampshire remained in flux Thursday after major disagreements emerged among Republicans in the State House and the defeat of a last-minute push in the House.

Now, the question of whether to allow New Hampshire college students to carry firearms will come down to end-of-year negotiations between the House and the Senate.

In February, the House passed House Bill 1793, a bill to remove firearm restrictions for students and faculty at state colleges and universities. But Senate Republicans, who are divided on the idea, passed a more limited version Thursday: a bill allowing concealed firearms for faculty members only.

Meanwhile, House Republicans failed in a last-minute effort to pass the proposal again by tacking it onto an unrelated bill.

The dizzying series of votes on Thursday left major questions about the viability of the bill. Democrats in both chambers have opposed the idea, arguing it will lead to unmanageable safety risks on campus. Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte has stayed on the sidelines, saying only public safety is her priority when weighing the topic. And college town police chiefs and university leaders have voiced their own opposition.

Proponents of campus carry in the House say they are disappointed by the Senate-passed compromise and aren’t satisfied with limiting firearms allowances to college faculty.

“Well, they missed the whole point,” said Rep. Sam Farrington, R-Rochester, who has championed the bill, in an interview Thursday. “They kept the title of the bill as the Protecting College Students Act, right? So that tells me that the senators who voted for it didn’t even read the bill.

But Farrington argued the effort is not over, and said they would keep pressuring Senate Republicans to support the broader bill.

“It’s a non-starter right now, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have time to work together,” he said.

Twists and turns

As originally proposed, HB 1793 would prevent any public institution of higher education from enacting “rules, policies, or similar provisions” that restrict the “possession, carry, storage, or lawful use of firearms or non-lethal weapons on campus.”

That version of the bill, which passed the House, also stated that students would not need a permit or license to possess those firearms. It allowed students aggrieved by a breach of the law to sue an institution and required damages in a successful lawsuit to be at least $10,000.

When the bill arrived at the Senate Judiciary Committee, it attracted fierce pushback. That included Nate Buffington, chief of the Plymouth Police Department; Jack Dalton, the deputy chief of policy in Durham; the presidents of the University of New Hampshire and Plymouth State University; and a number of students and faculty members at the University of New Hampshire. In total, 1,872 people signed in opposition to the bill when it arrived in the Senate, compared to 92 in favor.

Students and faculty said they believed allowing firearms could make them less safe from other students, while law enforcement leaders worried it could hamper their ability to respond to mass shootings and other threats, and that it could cause alcohol-fueled tragedies and increase suicides.

Supporters, meanwhile, said it could allow people to feel safe walking alone on campus at night and argued it would provide students with the same natural right of self-defense as people outside college campuses.

The deluge of testimony appeared to give some Republican senators pause, such as Sen. Bill Gannon, R-Sandown, who said the bill left safety and logistics questions. That concern caused the Judiciary Committee to recommend the proposal be examined by a study committee.

But some Senate Republicans still supported the original bill, and by the time HB 1793 reached the Senate floor on Thursday, a compromise had emerged. In addition to allowing firearms for faculty members, the version that passed Thursday would bar state colleges and universities from preventing students from possessing “non-lethal weapons,” which include pepper spray, mace, stun guns, and TASERs. And it would create a study commission to look into the feasibility of future legislation to allow students to have firearms, including safety concerns and costs to colleges.

Sen. Keith Murphy, R-Manchester, who supported the original bill, said he would “hold his nose” and vote for the compromise.

“I believe, in my heart of hearts, that adults have the right to carry a firearm,” he said. “I believe this right will eventually be recognized by the Legislature.”

In the House, the attempt to pass the full campus carry bill a second time failed, 159-177. Rep. Nicholas Germana, D-Keene, and a history professor at Keene State College, said the idea was riddled with concerns. In Keene, he said, the college does not have armed security and relies on an understaffed Keene Police Department to respond to incidents on campus.

“I believe that we all want the same outcome: the appropriate balance of rights and responsibilities and safety on our campuses,” he said, urging the House to defeat the bill.

Farrington said he had presented an amendment to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he said would have addressed many of the concerns, including allowing colleges to restrict firearms in dorm rooms, require lockboxes, bar alcohol use around firearms, and prohibit firearms at major events such as graduations. “That’s something that we can work on in the next two weeks,” he said.

The House will vote May 21 on whether to accept the Senate’s amendments, reject them, or request a committee of conference. If it does the latter, that committee — which will comprise negotiators from the House and Senate — will have until May 28 to reach a compromise.

Resurrection of campus due process

On Thursday, the House also tacked a college campus “due process” bill onto an unrelated bill, Senate Bill 409, sending the measure to the Senate for the second time.

The Republican-backed amendment would require state universities and colleges to adopt a series of due process requirements for on-campus disciplinary proceedings — including the requirement that those institutions allow alleged victims of sexual assault to be cross-examined.

Those requirements include the right of a defendant to receive an impartial hearing; to be treated as innocent until proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence; to receive written notice of the allegations at least seven days ahead; to receive a list of witnesses and evidence being used against them; the right to have a verbatim record of the hearing; and the right to appeal a decision to the vice president of student affairs.

The list also includes a defendant’s right “to confront and cross-examine witnesses who provide evidence against them — a point that has driven controversy.

Under the House’s amendment on Thursday, the defendant may not personally cross-examine a witness who is the alleged victim of the behavior being adjudicated. In that case, the bill states that the hearing officer must approve another person to carry out the cross-examination on the defendant’s behalf. The bill allows the defendant to observe the cross-examination of the alleged victim.

The bill would cover proceedings against students, student organizations, and faculty members.

The House added language to SB 409, a bill that would increase the penalty for a driver who fails to stop for a police officer attempting to pull them over from a misdemeanor to a felony.

The final bill, passed Thursday, faces an uphill battle. In February, the Senate rejected an earlier House bill to adopt the due process changes, House Bill 510, and attempted to create a study committee on the issue instead. That bill failed after the Senate and House refused to compromise.

But on Thursday, Rep. Bob Lynn, R-Windham, who has championed the due process legislation, argued that the latest amendment is designed to address the Senate’s concerns.

“I believe that we have addressed every objection that was a substantive objection to the bill,” he said.

Rep. Dave Luneau, D-Hopkinton, countered that the University of New Hampshire and other public colleges and universities in the state already have their own disciplinary proceedings that include due process, and said the bill is not necessary.

Luneau invoked his experience serving on boards at the University of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire Technical Institute. “In the 25 years I’ve been on both those boards, I’ve never heard any complaint about the due process procedures that are used for disciplinary hearings on campus,” he said.

In addition to the due process legislation, the House added another unrelated amendment to SB 409 that would hold governmental units — such as school districts — liable for negligence that results in personal injury or property damage.