The Davidson County Sheriff's Office has fired Jack Byrd, the 25-year-old deputy who went public last month with allegations that the agency had abused its power to marshal support in a political fight.

His termination was made official just before the holiday weekend, one week after a disciplinary hearing where a panel met to review the allegations against him. It brings an end to his time at the agency where he's worked since he was 19. But there's little indication that it means the end of the storm he kicked up nearly a month ago — one that has included multiple allegations of misconduct within Sheriff Daron Hall's office and counter allegations from the agency, whose reaction to the controversy has frequently included dubious claims about Byrd and his record, despite a personnel file that includes multiple awards and positive performance reviews.

What's more, events in the week leading up to Byrd's firing only serve to thicken the plot.

In case you don't recall, this all began when, ahead of a council vote on a contentious plan to consolidate Nashville's jails and DCSO operations in Southeast Nashville, Byrd went to Pith and other outlets alleging that the sheriff's office had pressured employees into signing letters urging their respective council representatives to support the relocation plan. Specifically, Byrd said a superior of his — Corley Pearson, director of the armed services division — had instructed him to sign the letter and suggested that his career would be in jeopardy if he didn't. Additionally, Byrd claimed that he had gone to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigations with allegations of earlier, unrelated misconduct within the sheriff's office. (The TBI would never comment directly on the matter, but the Nashville District Attorney's office has since confirmed that they were reviewing information Byrd brought to them.)

In response to all that, Sheriff Daron Hall claimed that Byrd had actually been blackmailing Pearson, threatening to expose the other alleged misconduct unless a dispute over his work schedule was settled. That, Hall said, was the reason Byrd was under investigation. Byrd emphatically denied that accusation, claiming then and ever since that his schedule had already been worked out and that he had shared the allegations with Pearson to essentially vent and seek his advice about how to deal with them. Byrd would refuse to cooperate in the resulting investigation because, as he told Pith, he did not believe the allegations would be investigated fairly.

That investigation culminated with Byrd's disciplinary hearing on June 25, and is summarized in a sanction letter to Byrd from Byron Grizzle, DCSO's director of human resources, which informs him of his termination.

Among other bits of the disputed narrative, the letter details the initial conversation between Byrd and Pearson — the one during which Byrd claims he was pressured to sign the letter and during which the sheriff claims Byrd blackmailed Pearson. It states that Pearson believed Byrd would expose information harmful to the agency if he didn't get his way and later notes Byrd's denial.

But Byrd claims that Pearson himself contradicted the DCSO version of events at the June 25 hearing, telling Pith that Pearson testified that he did not feel threatened and didn't interpret Byrd's comments during their conversation to be "blackmail." According to Byrd, Pearson told the assembled panel that he thought the two were just talking. Pith asked DCSO spokeswoman Melinda McDowell about that claim and she said that "[d]ue to expected future litigation and civil service process appeals, we are not able to speak specifically to this claim."

It would not be the first time that the sheriff's office let accusations against Byrd filter into the public without acknowledging objections from the person supposedly making the accusation. Pith requested an audio recording of the June 25 hearing on Monday afternoon and McDowell said Tuesday morning that the office would provide one as soon as possible.

The sanction letter also reveals one previously unknown detail in this whole saga: what the allegations of misconduct were that Byrd shared with Pearson and subsequently brought to authorities. From the beginning, Byrd has declined to comment on them. But the letter states that, according to Pearson, Byrd told him that Byrd had "received text messages claiming that a DCSO supervisor threatened an employee with a firearm when that employee asked about tools or materials stolen at the time of the May 2010 Nashville flood."

The letter goes on to detail Byrd's lack of cooperation with investigators asking for more information about the alleged incident, stating that Byrd declined to speak further about the allegations until he had gathered more evidence. As noted above, Byrd has claimed that he was uncomfortable cooperating with the investigation because he did not believe it would be a fair one. According to the letter, the DCSO concluded from his evasiveness and lack of cooperation that he was being dishonest.

Pith asked McDowell if the office had attempted to investigate the matter, beyond talking to Byrd.

"Mr. Byrd has never revealed the alleged misconduct to us, so we have been unable to investigate his claims," McDowell said in an emailed response. "This failure to cooperate with our internal investigation led to his termination."

The letter goes on to note another allegation against Byrd, one which he acknowledged: his routine failure to carry the commission card while on duty, which authorizes officers to carry and use firearms. The letter says that Byrd claimed to have legitimate reasons for this, but that the panel disagreed. In conclusion, it says that the panel found Byrd to be "unreliable."

"Your apparent lack of credibility, your clear contempt for the integrity of the agency and its leaders, and your view that you could ignore essentially policies as you deem fit resulted in the panel's recommendation that your employment be terminated," the letter reads.

Just as interesting is another meeting that took place just before Byrd's termination was made official — a private meeting between Byrd, Hall, and Chief Deputy John Ford.

At this lengthy meeting last Thursday, Byrd says the sheriff offered him a deal, which he described to Pith like this: If Byrd agreed to go away and drop this matter completely, including agreeing not to pursue litigation against the DCSO or Hall personally, then he could resign, be listed as eligible for re-hire, and receive a neutral reference from Hall. Byrd tells Pith that he countered by asking Hall to to write him a letter that Byrd could use to clear his name when pursuing any future employment opportunities. Furthermore, he told the sheriff he would agree to leave the agency out of it but would not forego litigation against Hall as an individual. Perhaps not surprisingly, the two did not come to an agreement.

Asked whether she disputed Byrd's account and whether it was typical for the sheriff to offer such a deal to employees, outside of the normal disciplinary process, McDowell responded:

"It is typical for the Sheriff’s Office to give an employee the opportunity to resign outside of the normal disciplinary process when facing termination. At Jack Byrd’s request, and given the publicity surrounding this event, the sheriff agreed to meet with Jack Byrd."

According to Byrd, that meeting was also recorded, and Pith has requested a copy of that audio recording as well.

Byrd tells Pith he plans to appeal the decision to the Civil Service Commission. Among other things, he claims that Hall irrevocably tainted the process by saying publicly that Byrd would be terminated.

As of June 18, the DA's office was still reviewing a report on the information Byrd had brought to them. Office spokeswoman Dorinda Carter, told Pith Tuesday afternoon that Funk was currently out of town and an update could could next week.