By all accounts, the 82-year-old millionaire is an elusive character, seen in public about as often as a nun in an enclosed order. Which might explain why his impending appearance before the tribunal has attracted so many of the Irish media to the Channel Islands, with a stopover first in the High Court.
All morning, the photographers kept on the lookout for silver-haired octogenarians, of which there are many in this sleepy backwater. But the High Court back in Dublin had yet to rule on whether the press could be present when Mr Murphy gave his evidence, and the chairman, Mr Justice Flood, postponed proceedings until the afternoon.
The setting for this unusual episode in Irish legal history is a former convent, now a Christian centre, near the centre of the island's capital, St Peter Port. A small conference room, no larger than a classroom, has been hired as the venue for the hearings. Whoever booked it clearly wasn't anticipating a large attendance, and it was standing-room only for the dozen or so press when the hearing started after lunch.
A short time earlier, a black Mercedes pulled up, but it was Mr Joseph Murphy jnr, his fingers tightly clamped around a cigarette, who alighted.
Mr Murphy snr's doctor, Dr John Curran, was called to give evidence about his patient's many ailments. The list was curiously similar to the afflictions suffered by Mr Murphy's accuser, Mr James Gogarty. Both men are 82 and suffer from diabetes, arthritis, heart problems and one or two other unspecified maladies.
But whereas Mr Gogarty's mind was sharp and his memory remarkable, Mr Murphy suffers from "brain failure" and memory loss, according to his doctor. Dr Curran's advice was that the risk of collapse and even death should be minimised by having as few people as possible present.
But as the doctor conceded to Mr Frank Callanan SC, for Mr Gogarty, this advice was based not an a physical examination of the patient, but on discussions he had had with Mr Murphy. "A verbal examination of the patient is still an examination," he insisted.
No information was provided about any independent assessment of Mr Murphy's health, although Mr Justice Flood indicated before the summer break that he wished to have this carried out.
Neither was there any discussion yesterday of a compromise solution which would meet the desire of the media to witness the evidence as well as having regard to Mr Murphy's desire to avoid sharing the same room as the press. A video feed to another room in the centre, for example, would easily achieve this objective, at very little cost.
For Mr Callanan, Mr Murphy's legal team were making a "rolling application". First, Mr Murphy was unable to travel to Dublin for medical reasons; then he was unable to give evidence in public. Fresh from yesterday's victory, Mr Garrett Cooney SC, for Mr Murphy, may seek to push home his advantage by seeking further restrictions, particularly when it comes to Mr Callanan's cross-examination.
Not for the first time, the two men are at one another's throat, as witnessed by their final remarks at yesterday's hearing. Mr Cooney said Mr Callanan was trying to impose a choice on the chairman that would lead to his client's premature death. Mr Callanan said this was "a disgraceful comment".
Perhaps Mr Murphy, when he finally does appear today, would be safer if the lawyers and not the journalists were excluded.