There is no direct evidence, but there is compelling circumstantial evidence that Jeptha D. Osborn-741, John Osborn-693, and George W. Osborn-694 are children of John Osborn-6074.
1) When John Osborn-6074 died in 1817, his wife Susan declined to be administrator of his estate. In her place, one John Williams and George Wood were appointed administrators. (Scott Co., KY Court Order Book B-2, page 344) 2) The book "Genealogy of the Sharpless Family", gives information on the family of Reuben and Jane Wood (Howard) Osborn, including the fact that Reuben's mother's maiden name was Williams. This book gives no citations for evidence, but from a comment included with the information on Milton H. Osborn, son of Reuben and Jane, it is known that Gilbert Cope, author of "Gen. of the Sharpless Family", corresponded with Jane Wood (Howard) Osborn. Thus it seems highly likely that the information on Reuben Osborn's mother's maiden name being Williams is correct. 3) In the 1850 census for Daviess Co., MO, a Susan Hubbard is enumerated with the family of John Osborn-693. From Boone Co., MO records, it is clear that Susan Hubbard was the widow of Durrett Hubbard. Recorded in Boone Co., MO deed book F, page 23, is a deed where Durrett Hubbard and Susan his wife sell George W. Osborn-694 a tract of land. The Osborns and Hubbards had some sort of close relationship. 3) In the estate papers for a John Williams who died in Boone Co., MO in 1828, George W. Osborn-694 is listed as a buyer at an estate sale. Durrett Hubbard is listed as having loaned John Williams $50. Other information available on John Williams shows he was from Scott Co., KY or the vicinity of Scott Co., KY. 4) In the Scott Co., KY tax records through 1817 there is just one John Williams consistly listed in the tax records. (There is another John Williams, but the second John Williams is consistly listed as John *F.* Williams.) After 1817, John Williams is gone from the Scott Co., KY tax records. Clearly John Williams who died in 1828 in Boone Co., MO is the John Williams of the Scott Co., KY tax rolls and the same person who was administrator of the estate of John Osborn-6074. 5) In the 1810 census for Scott Co., KY, there are three Osborn families with 3 or more male children in the 0-10 age group -- the families of Richard, Bennett, and John Osborn. The families of Richard and Bennett Osborn are known sufficiently well to know that neither Richard nor Bennett Osborn are father of Jeptha D., John, and George W. listed above. From the above, it is clear that Susan (Williams) Osborn was closely related to John Williams and about 1822 moved to Boone Co., MO taking her family. Sometime between 1822 and 1825 she married Durrett Hubbard and after Durrett Hubbard died in 1848, she resided with her son John Osborn-693. The exact relation of John Williams and Susan Williams is unknown, but it seems likely that they were brother and sister. John Williams left a will and Susan Williams is definitely not John Williams' daughter. I previously had Jesse Osborn-667 as a child of Richard Osburn[#1] of Owen Co., KY. From tax records, it appears that Jesse Osborn was born about 1794 and according to 1880 census records for three of Jesse's children, Jesse was born in KY. Of the Scott Co., KY Osborn families living in Scott Co., KY by around 1794, Richard Osburn was the only person with "room" in the family for Jesse. The census data for Richard Osburn-1 in the 1810 census for Scott Co., KY doesn't show him with any male children above age 10, while John Osborn-6074's family shows several male children older than 10. Jesse also moved to Daviess Co., IN as did John Osborn-693 and George W. Osborn-694. Jesse also named one of his sons Jeptha D. *****
You are welcome to include the information on the family of John and Susan (Williams) Osborn in your files. Please though also include the information on the evidence given here. People seeing the information on the family of John and Susan (Williams) Osborn deserve to know the information on this family is based on circumstantial evidence and what that evidence is.