Past Perfect

I dont see any problem with "after" here. Both "after" and "past perfect" are for different purposes.
"after" --> when he was captured.
"past perfect"--> why he was captured

The past perfect may well be there because of the past tense said rather than captured.

Hi Jim,

Can you clear my one very basic doubt about tenses.........when I was in 6th standard my teacher used to tell me that "with said usage of that should be there, for example, he said that" and "with told usage of that is not required"...........can you tell me whether is it so???????

I have the same doubt.. Isn't "said 'that'" not required in the above sentence?
Experts please opine.

Interesting question!

I've been hunting around for authoritative answers to this one for the past couple days, with no luck. In informal English, there is no difference between indirect/reported speech with or without that. In formal English . . . well, I'm still looking. As examples of the range of opinions, Merriam-Webster lists its omission as a characteristic of informal English, while the BBC doesn't list it as a requirement. This omission typically occurs when the dependent clause (the reported speech, in this case) begins with a proper noun or a personal pronoun.

There is no ambiguity without that; you do not use that in indirect questions. It wouldn't surprise me if journalism were pushing it out, since it's one less word to print.

I know of no difference between said and told in this regard -- I think that may have been made up by your teacher. Both say and tell can be transitive or intransitive (that is, either requiring or not requiring a direct object, here the object clause of reported speech which may or may not start with that). If somebody wants to insist that indirect/reported speech begins with that, it will do so regardless of the verb.