How was the elstad case different from seibert's?

In the Elstad case the court ruled that the suspect’s statement that put him in the act, or admitted guilt was unsolicited.  He was taken to the station and Maranda before he gave a second statement.  During the questioning of Seibert, five days after the act, the officer questioned her for 30 to 40 minutes obtaining a confession that caused a death in the fire of her trailer.  After taking a 20 minute break the officer came back, read the Maranda and obtained a signed waiver.  Then got another statement. The District Court suppressed the prewarning statement but admitted the post warning one, and Seibert was convicted of second-degree murder. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the case indistinguishable from Oregon v. Elstad,  in which this Court held that a suspect's unwarned inculpatory statement made during a brief exchange at his house did not make a later, fully warned inculpatory statement inadmissible. In reversing, the State Supreme Court held that, because the interrogation was nearly continuous, the second statement, which was clearly the product of the invalid first statement, should be suppressed; and distinguished Elstad on the ground that the warnings had not intentionally been withheld

answer; i believe the correct answer is (federalist);

i want to say death; parole, probation, and fines are still being used all the time.