Now it's up to a jury to decide whether Roman Polanski was the victim of an "abominable lie" or whether his "tasteless and vulgar" behavior warranted examination in a magazine article.

Closing arguments wrapped Thursday in the Oscar-winning director's high-profile libel trial against the publishers of Vanity Fair over a story that claimed he tried to seduce a young model on the way to the funeral of his murdered wife, Sharon Tate.

London's bookmakers, keen to take action on anything, are evenly split on who will come out victorious. Jurors will have to determine whether Vanity Fair libeled Polanski--or simply goofed by getting the timing of the supposed seduction wrong. The panel will also decide the question of whether Polanski does indeed have any reputation left to defend since--as alleged by the magazine's legal team--given his lurid sexual history, including being wanted in the U.S. on a decades-old rape charge.

The Polish-born filmmaker sued Vanity Fair and its parent company, Cond? Nast, for a July 2002 piece that quoted an editor of Harper's magazine as saying Polanski made a "tasteless and vulgar" sexual advance toward model Beatte Telle at Elaine's restaurant in New York in August 1969, just days after the eight-months-pregnant Tate and four of her friends were murdered by the Manson family.

During the trial, the magazine acknowledged that the incident did not occur during Polanski's brief stopover in New York as he returned from London to California for Tate's burial. Polanski's legal team, with the help of some testimony by Mia Farrow (who starred in Polanski's 1968 horror classic, Rosemary's Baby), was able to prove the director didn't dine at Elaine's until three weeks later.

However, Vanity Fair and its source, 70-year-old Harper's editor Lewis Lapham, maintained that while the dates may have been wrong, the essential thrust of the article about Polanski's promiscuity was accurate. Telle, however, was not called to the stand.

In his closing statement, the magazine's attorney, Thomas Shields, invoked what he called "Roman's Law of Morality," trying to show that given his womanizing ways, including numerous instances of adultery during his marriage to Tate, Polanski ultimately had no moral or legal ground to stand on.

"This law knows of no rules--only violations of civilized conduct which, it appears, can be readily excused," the legal eagle said in defense of the magazine. "As to whether Mr. Polanski's reputation is capable of being damaged, sadly, we would say it is beyond repair."

He also reminded the panel about Polanski flight to France in 1977 to avoid facing prison time for a guilty plea to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in California. The 71-year-old filmmaker was forced to seek an unprecedented ruling from England's highest court allowing him to testify via satellite from his home in Paris, avoid traveling to Britain where he could face possible extradition.

"An honorable man would come to this court, an honorable man would return to California, an honorable man would not behave the way he behaved--even in the swinging '60s," the attorney continued.

Shields concluded by telling the jury that even if they ultimately agree with Polanski, they shouldn't reward him damages for his aberrant behavior, suggesting instead they give him a "symbolic award" such as "the price of a cinema ticket."

"By that symbolic award, you can send a message across the Channel about the moral values which decent people cherish," he said.

Polanski's attorney, John Kelsey-Fry, disputed that portrait of the director, saying that in the wake of Tate's slaying, Polanski was "thousands of feet up in the air, under sedation, supported by his friends, in utter grief."

"The truth is that Mr. Polanski was about as removed from callous indifference as is possible to imagine," the attorney said as Polanski's current wife, actress Emannuelle Seigner, sat in the courtroom in her husband's stead. "He was at pains--and I mean obvious pain--to honor [Tate's memory], protect it and defend it."

Both Tate's sister, Debra, and Farrow testified to as much earlier in the week.

Added Kelsey-Fry: "The burden is on the defense to prove their case. The most obvious witness to call if their case is true, and she supports it, is Beatte Telle. You have heard not one word of evidence from her."

After closing statements, Judge David Eady gave instructions to the jurors before they began their deliberations. A verdict is expected as early as Friday.