Learn English – “would have v3” or “must have v3” for guessing about situations or things in the past

The short answer is that, yes, you absolutely can use "would have" with past simple, just as you know you can use it with past perfect. When you learn English, you may well learn about 2nd conditionals (If + past simple, would/wouldn't + verb) and 4rd conditionals (If + past perfect, would have + past participle). You may not have learned that it is possible to mix conditionals. Oh the flexibility of language! Let's see:

Rule of thumb: We use the 3rd conditional (as mentioned before) to describe past situations that we cannot change, whilst we use the 2nd conditional to talk about situations referring to the present time.

2nd conditional: If I were taller, I'd be able to see over that fence.

3rd conditional: If I had been born a giant, I would have dunked that 3-pointer easily.

So it stands to reason that given the right ingredients (or situation) we can mix up elements of these two language constructs.

To comment on the book quote you referenced, the structure is correct. Trisha was thinking (in that particular moment in the past) (hence past simple) it was impossible for me to turn up, however, as soon as I did, the reference to me not showing up became completely impossible, as shown by "wouldn't have shown up" rather than "wouldn't show up".

Unfortunately, this example

If you called me we would have gone for a movie.

is not right. Since the opportunity to call in that particular instance has passed, you can't use a reference to the present situation, but rather to the missed opportunity, like so:

If you had called me we would have gone for a movie.

Hopefully this has helped you, but I'll present a final example to see if we can really crack the case.

I am in a sweet shop with my five-year-old son. He's a bit mischievous and so with my back turned he tries to grab some sweets from a high jar, which smashes on the floor. In my embarrassed state I think to myself "If he were taller, he would have been able to grab the jar no problem."

I comment on the general situation (my son is not so tall) mixed with the (unfortunately) impossible to change scenario of a broken jar (he would have been able to grab the jar). Hence, referring to multiple aspects of time allow us to use a combination of tenses. Equally, I could have used a pure 3rd conditional:

If he had jumped higher, he would have been able to grab the jar.

Either way, we're not allowed back in the sweet shop.

In all three cases, the present perfect is appropriate because we're discussing potential events or conditions that occurred at or have continued from some point in the past right up to the present. Since the father is still alive and still employed, it's presumed that the suffering and employment condition continue to the present day.

The past perfect isn't appropriate in these three examples because we're not describing an event or condition that entirely occurred earlier than some other event. (And when we do, we do indeed use the past perfect: "...we had thought a holiday in Scotland would be relaxing for him." Here, the prediction that the holiday would be restorative took place before the illness and then ceased, having been falsified. Or "...we'd been trying to persuade him to have a break for ages before he agreed." The attempts at persuasion ended once he agreed.) Barring alleviation from stress, the person is still suffering; barring separation from his job, he is still working.

It is true that the length of time ("recently") is not explicitly defined. "Some time" could be anything from weeks to years. However, this vagueness doesn't change the fact that the inquiry addresses a period that began in the past and continues to the present day; the same can be said about the suffering and the working. Thus, the present perfect is the right choice.