rights, whether the defendant initiated the second confession, the effect of his having previously made a confession, and the purpose and flagrancy of police misconduct. [Id. at 283, 511 A.2d 80 (internal quotations and citations omitted).] The trial court found that the cat had not been let out of the bag at 10:53 a.m., that the final statement “was a marked departure in terms of culpability from the earlier statement on that date,” and that it was not provoked by any action on the part of the State. Defendant revealed his involvement in the crime in “bits and pieces” over the course of the day. With the additional information defendant obtained from the police, he was able to make an informed assessment whether to give another statement. See Kennedy, supra, 97 N.J. 278, 478 A.2d 723 (<HOLDING>). The court found as intervening circumstances
holding that a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence holding incrimina ting statement admissible even though it was made moments after the officers had responded to the defendants question about what would happen if the defendant failed to make a statement and after the defendants request for counsel holding inadmissible a statement made after incomplete miranda advisement but holding a subsequent statement admissible because the court found it was given after a full advisement holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that statement to police made thirtysix hours after a different statement to police was not part of one confession and not admissible under the rule of completeness