Gaping plot holes (spoilers)

At the trial, the preacher guy comes in and testifies that Idgie actually wasn't at her mother's house on the night Frank disappeared like she'd testified, but was in fact at his revival. It apparently doesn't occur to anyone to question why Idgie would have lied about that. Was she supposed to have been so embarrassed about having been at a revival that she'd rather testify to something completely unverifiable, and thereby take the very real risk of being convicted of murder, rather than admit it? Makes no sense. What's embarrassing about being at a revival? I understand that the point here is that preachers had enormous credibility in Southern courts of that era merely by virtue of being preachers, but it just seems wildly unlikely that the prosecutor wouldn't say "Well, in that case, why didn't she say so?" when the judge was getting ready to dismiss his case. Also, the prosecutor says "that doesn't prove anything; the murder could have happened two or three days later," allowing the preacher to counter with "yes, but our revivals go on for three days," but in fact the murder could have equally well happened two or three weeks, months or years later, given that they had no body and no evidence at all of when it actually happened. Nothing magic about the three-day figure that the prosecutor happened to pick out of the air except that it happens to be a credible length of time for a revival to last.

And then, at the end, there's that little teaser thing about how maybe Ninny and Idgie are the same person. I gather from some of the other comments that this wasn't based on anything in the book, and given how ham-handedly it was done, I can readily believe that. The basis of it that there's a note from Idgie on Ruth's grave, and Evelyn and the viewer are both led to wonder if Ninny, who was sitting right there, wrote the note. Indeed, she might have. But what she really couldn't have done is leave the other thing that we see on Ruth's grave, a canning jar with honeycomb in it, covered with a nice little rustic piece of cloth. Where are we supposed to think that Ninny came by something like that on her taxi ride from the nursing home to Whistlestop? It obviously wasn't a commercial product, since it didn't have a label, so she couldn't have had the taxi driver stop at a Winn-Dixie to pick it up. To me, that jar of honeycomb was definitive proof that Ninnie and Idgie were NOT the same person -- which means that the movie was kind of unsatisfactory in that we never find out what happened to Idgie.

And speaking of the taxi ride: so, the people at the nursing home just casually let Ninny check out and get in a taxi and go home, when they were all totally aware that the home she was going to had been torn down? Srsly? That's just cruel, to say nothing of being major lawsuit material.