It's so hard to say what they were thinking, and the articles at the links don't have enough detail.
Bottom line: I think the argument can be made that the judge should have struck this juror himself. In fact, the ties to Pincus and to others may be greater than he indicated during his testimony. Maybe even not an intentional omission.
We'll see what the other jurors say. Especially since Denis (one n) is going to make bank off of a book on this.