"if the defendant is in possession of information regarding ... exigent circumstances which require protection of the public, the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, will be admissible in evidence"[1]
The public safety exception allows for some latitude for police to gather admissible information prior to giving a miranda warning.
This is correct. However, as I understand it, a defense attorney can throw holy hell to prevent the admission of such statements in court and has a decent chance of winning.
They don't need him to say a word to convict him of a staggering number and severity of crimes. I would be surprised if they even bother trying to admit as evidence anything he says during interrogation, and after chatting with a couple of con-law lawyers who all concurred I feel that's a pretty fair guess.
The public safety exception allows for some latitude for police to gather admissible information prior to giving a miranda warning.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona