In the latest weird instalment to the Hewlett-Packard spying-pretexting scandal, Hewlett-Packard Co. Chairwoman Patricia Dunn, who was scheduled to step down in January, has left the company and chief executive officer Mark Hurd says he has taken full responsibility and has apologized to the reporters who were snooped on.

Hurd said he was told verbally in March that the investigative team had determined who the leaker was but his response as CEO leaves some uncomfortable questions about his leadership.

"I understand there is also a written report of the investigation addressed to me and others. But I did not read it. I could have and I should have," reports Bloomberg.

So let's understand this. Leaks were really bad for the company, and identifying the miscreant director spilling their guts to the media was crucial. But not so important that the CEO had to read the report. Yeah right!!

Indeed, the entire exercise comes across more as a PR exercise (and a bad one at that) and failed to show that the once-proud Silicon Valley flagship is about to get on top of this problem.

Hurd refused to take questions, citing his appearance before the Congressional hearings next week.

A lot of issues have been left unresolved, as commentator Loren Steffy says in his Houston Chronicle blog which gives a fantastic blow-by-blow description of the press conference.

And no matter what is said and done now, the damage to HP is done.

"Ethical violations of this magnitude are like rape charges: once they are alleged, impressions are never the same again,'' says MarketWatch commentator Thomas Kostigen.

As Kostigen says, the HP scandal makes a mockery of the branding exercise that once held HP up as a model citizen."It isn't the first time a corporation's goodwill has been undone by the people that run it and it certainly won't be the last."

As for Hurd saying sorry to journalists, it's more a non-apology.

Sorry to the journalists? Big deal. Nothing to the investors who have watched the CEO and chairman trash the brand. And no apology for ethical violations.

It reminded me very much of the Pope's recent non-apology for offending Muslims , where he was sorry for the reactions to his words, not the words themselves.

The question is whether Hurd's "apology" has made it worse.

As Barbara Kellerman points out in the Harvard Business Review, public apologies are risky. A refusal to apologize can be smart, or it can be suicidal, and it cuts the other way too.

Kellerman lists the conditions needed for an apology to work. The leader must acknowledge the mistake or wrongdoing and must accept full responsibility. The leader also needs to express regret and provide assurance that the offense won't be repeated. And the apology needs to be well-timed.

The question is whether Hurd has met the criteria. Read the Kellerman piece, When Should A Leader Apologize, and you be the judge.