In Chapter 6 of Mumford's Geometric invariant theory, during the proof of the rigidity lemma, there are two statements I'm not sure how to verify. The general setup is:

$p : X \rightarrow S$ is flat, $S$ connected, and $H^0(X_s, o_{X_s}) \cong k(s)$ for all points $s \in S$.

In the first part, we're assuming $\epsilon : S \rightarrow X$ is a section, and that $S$ consists of one point. Mumford says: "One checks that $p_*(o_X) \cong o_S$." I found a proof when $p$ is projective (and even proper, I think), which works because this is going to be used on projective abelian schemes, but the general case is still bothering me.

In the second part, $X$ still has the section $\epsilon$, but $S$ is now general (i.e. not just a point), and $p$ is a closed map. During the proof, $Z$ is a closed subscheme of $X$. Mumford claims the statement:

If $p^{-1}(t) \subset Z$ (set-theoretically), for any $t \in S$, then for all artin subschemes $T \subset S$ concentrated at $t$, $Z$ contains $p^{-1}(T)$ as a subscheme.

implies that $Z$ contains an open neighborhood of $p^{-1}(t)$. Intuitively, I think of the artin subscheme as a thickening of the point, and so if I contain an entire fiber then I get "a little bit extra", making $Z$ contain an open neighborhood. I'm wondering how I should do this more formally.

Thanks for any help, it is much appreciated!