How was the elstad case different from seibert's?

In the Elstad case the court ruled thatthe suspect’s statement that put him in the act, or admitted guilt was unsolicited.  He was taken to the station and Marandabefore he gave a second statement. During the questioning of Seibert, five days after the act, the officerquestioned her for 30 to 40 minutes obtaining a confession that caused a deathin the fire of her trailer.  After takinga 20 minute break the officer came back, read the Maranda and obtained a signedwaiver.  Then got another statement. TheDistrict Court suppressed the prewarning statement but admitted the postwarning one, and Seibert was convicted of second-degree murder. The MissouriCourt of Appeals affirmed, finding the case indistinguishable from Oregonv. Elstad, in which this Court held that a suspect'sunwarned inculpatory statement made during a brief exchange at his house didnot make a later, fully warned inculpatory statement inadmissible. Inreversing, the State Supreme Court held that, because the interrogation wasnearly continuous, the second statement, which was clearly the product of theinvalid first statement, should be suppressed; and distinguished Elstadon the ground that the warnings had not intentionally been withheld