First I think in usage って is simply a colloquial version of と. Thus (2) and (5) are equivalent, and so are (1) and (4).
(3) has a 言う (in parentheses). Without 言う, it would just be the colloquial version of (5). With 言う (followed by a comma) it makes little grammatical sense: it should rather be 言って.
I think a universal format would be
「Quote A」(と)(言って)、「Quote B」と言う
where you can replace と with って in colloquial writing/speech and 言って would often be omitted. E.g.
Everyone was telling me "great" and "wonderful".
Ritsuko told me "I don't have time, let's play together again next time", but when is next time?
In the second example the と does not mean "and". Rather, the quoting particle could be thrown in there to make sure that the first part is also a quote, which to the listener would not be obvious.
As an aside, as far as I understand the quoting particle と is enough to give a quotation. The brackets are inserted only for easier reading. (In particular, there is no clear distinction between "direct" and "indirect" quotations.)
Also, the quoting particle between the quotes can be omitted, but this works best when the quotes are short (usually one-word, see snailboat's examples in the comments) and it only works unambiguously in writing (or else, there is no difference between quoting 「しまった。イタい。やばい。」 and 「しまった」「イタい」「やばい」).